Womanist Apostle’s Creed

World Net Daily has an article up today titled Church: Out with George Washington, in with ‘Mother’ god.  In it they note that one of the exclusively female pastors at Washington’s former church recently read a new and improved version of the Apostle’s Creed during worship.  Click on the link to see the video, or you can see the text version from the author of the new creed, Sarah Moon:

I believe in God, our Mother Bear,
source of all being.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s wisdom made flesh,
along with Sophia, the church, and all that live in wisdom.
Born of the bad-ass womanist liberation theologian, Mary,
suffered under the systems of oppression of this world,
was crucified, died, and was buried,
forever joining in solidarity with those murdered by Empire.
On the third day, the women declared him risen;
signifying God’s “No” to oppression.
He points to God our Mother Bear,
who works in this world, calling for justice for the poor and oppressed.

I believe in Sophia Spirit,
Christ’s body, the church,
the communion of saints,
the grace to reject this world’s systems,
hope for justice in the future,
and renewed life everlasting. Amen.

This is something to keep in mind whenever someone offers the fact that (overt) feminist Chrsitians strongly disagree with them as proof that they are valiantly fighting against feminist corruption of Christianity.  Merely teaching new age ideas like God commands husbands to be emotionally available, or God communicates his favor through your wife’s holy vagina is enough to seem like a radical anti-feminist when compared with the teachings of overt feminists.  But the reference point for sound theology should not be the teachings of overt feminists, but whether the teaching is faithful to Scripture*.

*For Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, the reference point would also include church doctrine.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Rebellion, Social Justice Warriors, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

266 Responses to Womanist Apostle’s Creed

  1. donalgraeme says:

    I’ve seen such things before, and sadly will see them again. This will keep going until it all ends in flame.

    Oh, and not to stoke the fire too much on the faith tradition fight, but for Catholics and Orthodox scripture is still a reference point- just not the only one.

  2. Jack Russell says:

    If I didn’t check the links and haven’t read this blog before, I would have thought this is satire. This “church” is now a pagan house of worship. But they are showing what has become of what is called Christianity in the west. Probably would have been better to turn it into a mosque.

  3. Micha Elyi says:

    All are wished a blessed All Hallows Eve and an All Hallows Day in the grace of Our Lord.
    Those who seek to depart the Episcopalian innovations of men and women that have no basis in Sacred Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition are welcome to discover the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter within the Holy Catholic Church’s Western Rite.

    Other seekers who come to the Christian truth of Catholicism sometimes find the Church’s Eastern rites more manly in their worship practices and therefore more fitting to the worship and commitment they wish to offer to Our Lord. There is probably a church of the Byzantine Catholics, or Chaldean Catholics, or others–all in communion with the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome–near you.

  4. Pingback: Womanist Apostle’s Creed | @the_arv

  5. Hugh says:

    Pardon my ignorance, but who’s Sophia?

    Also, at least where I live, Mother Bears are thought of as being plain dangerous – although I am sure they have some good qualities too.

  6. stickdude90 says:

    Probably would have been better to turn it into a mosque.

    That makes me wonder – are there female imams out there?

  7. Scott says:

    I love this.

    The part about the distinction between overt feminism and the garden variety infused kind is key.

    When I share this stuff on social media everybody agrees “this is ridiculous!”

    But it offers an entry point to the rest.

  8. DeNihilist says:

    Thinking “Mother Cougar” would have been a better line.

  9. purge187 says:

    Sarah Crescent Moon & Star would be more apt. Unreal.

  10. Caligula says:

    It has become all but impossible to parody the increasingly political sermons heard in many liberal churches.

    The challenge for the more overtly political Episcopalian congregations has become, once you’ve shifted your focus away from foundational Christianity and toward contemporary Liberal politics, what’s to keep your congregants from just continuing the journey to either Unitarianism, or simply abandoning churches altogether?

    When I think of Episcopalians at Sunday worship, I picture large, old churches with an ever-dwindling congregation occupying a few front rows. Increasingly these churches seem to function primarily as an intermediate but brief stop for those on a journey toward a complete abandonment of their Christian faith. For or those on this journey, there’s precious little in such churches to keep them from just continuing their journey.

    This is obviously not a sustainable path for these churches, yet now that they’ve drifted this far from their origins, would it even be possible to ever come back?

  11. Rory says:

    ‘Thinking “Mother Cougar” would have been a better line. ‘

    I saw what you did there…..

  12. Frank K says:

    They should just be honest and admit they’re Unitarians and not Christians.

    According to wikipedia, the Episcopal church has almost 1.8 million members in the US, which is declining at an annual rate of about 3%, with a paltry 600K attending services on Sunday (that number is dropping even faster).

    One would think that these anti-churches would soon close their doors, but as a friend who was ordained into the liberal Disciples of Christ denomination tells me, these liberal denominations often have huge trust funds, so they don’t need anyone to drop a penny into the collection plate. He also tells me that dissent is not allowed at their liberal congresses, and that the few conservative pastors left in the denominations have to remain silent at these events, otherwise they won’t be assigned to a congregation. My friend pastors a “conservative” Hispanic Disciples congregation.

  13. seventiesjason says:

    Off topic. Apologies. Probably one of the most important days in the history of the Christian faith occurred today in 1517. 500 years ago. A good number of Protestants have no idea who Luther was. Most could care less…….just make sure the heat works in the church / don’t correct my child / Jesus said we can’t be judgmental / I believe the Bible but don’t read it, I just have to be saved to get to heaven….Jesus will forgive me of sinning / how dare you park in my parking spot, I have been parking here for 35 years every Sunday……

    from WK:

    https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/31/reformation-day-celebrates-the-supremacy-of-scripture-and-reason-in-theology-5/#comment-160274

  14. Frank K says:

    When I think of Episcopalians at Sunday worship, I picture large, old churches with an ever-dwindling congregation occupying a few front rows. Increasingly these churches seem to function primarily as an intermediate but brief stop for those on a journey toward a complete abandonment of their Christian faith.

    This reminds me of a funeral I attended at a Presbyterian Church USA congregation. The deceased was a member of the choir. Other than a few choir members, family members and in-laws and a very few friends, no one else attended, and the church was empty. This contrasted greatly with my mother’s funeral, in which the church was packed.

    During the funeral, the minister actually quoted Buddha and not once did I hear him mention the word “resurrection”. I also know that the deceased rejected the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and merely considered him a wise sage (I hope she repented of that before she died). The dead burying the dead, I suppose.

  15. feministhater says:

    They just want to worship the vagina. That is all. Let them have at it. The Churches that fall victim to this deserve their fate. Just remember that all forms of egalitarianism leads to this road of ruin. It starts with new age modern thought of men and women being equal and ends in full blown, run of the mill, pagan pussy worship.

  16. Frank K says:

    A good number of Protestants have no idea who Luther was.

    Martin Luther? Wasn’t he that black civil rights guy?

    Kidding aside, anyone else notice how MLK Jr. is seldom referred to as the “Reverend” MLK and is usually called “Dr, King” in the secular media.

  17. feministhater says:

    The part about the distinction between overt feminism and the garden variety infused kind is key.

    There really isn’t any difference, the one always leads to the other. When you put pussy on a pedestal, this is what you ultimately end up with, pussy worship. It started way back when with the enlightenment and equality, liberty and fraternity and ended off with the big Vaginina in the sky.

  18. earlthomas786 says:

    Pardon my ignorance, but who’s Sophia?

    Never heard this term either…my little research into it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_feminism

    ‘The theological concept of Sophia, usually seen as replacing the Holy Spirit in the Trinity , is often used to fulfill this desire for symbols which reflect women’s religious experiences. How Sophia is configured is not static, but usually filled with emotions and individual expression . For some Christian feminists, the Sophia concept is found in a search for women who reflect contemporary feminist ideals in both the Old and New Testament.’

    Basically it’s worshipping themselves and putting a name on it. It should be obvious to any Christian that it’s not worshipping God.

  19. Adam says:

    This is pure unadulterated sacrilege. Mother bear???

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    Caligula
    When I think of Episcopalians at Sunday worship, I picture large, old churches with an ever-dwindling congregation occupying a few front rows.

    You’d have a pretty accurate picture.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-religious-consolidations-20171010-htmlstory.html

    Earl
    ” For some Christian feminists, the Sophia concept is found in a search for women who reflect contemporary feminist ideals in both the Old and New Testament.”

    A quick search turned up a rabbit hole that runs further and deeper.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Order_of_Christ_Sophia

    Yet another red flag for churchgoing men to be aware of. Yeah, there’s a Saint Sophia in the RC / EO canon, this is not her.

  21. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Frank K
    They should just be honest and admit they’re Unitarians and not Christians.

    You’re a lot closer to the truth than they’re probably willing to admit. The chick (no way am I going to say “woman”) who wrote that “creed” piece actually is a Universalist Unitarian. She even wrote a piece saying as much, and you can find it if you click on that text link Dalrock included and do a search. Do be prepared to find a lot of other weirdness along the way, however — An acid trip usually bears more resemblance to hard reality than anything that you’ll find in Sarah Moon’s writing.

  22. Good one, Dalrock! If you keep writing parodies like that, you could work for The Onion!

  23. Frank K says:

    This is pure unadulterated sacrilege. Mother bear???

    It must be from the Gospel of the Berenstain Bears

  24. Anon says:

    This is something to keep in mind whenever someone offers the fact that (overt) feminist Chrsitians strongly disagree with them as proof that they are valiantly fighting against feminist corruption of Christianity.

    Oh, this is the central premise of those who are desperate to believe that Republican women are strongly against ‘feminism’.

    Even RS McCain has this misconception.

  25. SnapperTrx says:

    Had a couple of young ladies approach my wife at the Walmart asking her if she knew about “god the mother”. My wife said it threw her for a loop and she wasn’t quite sure what they were talking about when I happened upon her (I was looking at something else in the store). When she asked them to repeat what they had just said to me I heard god and mother and just said “nope”, and walked off, wife in tow. Not only is this in the churches, but they are actively hunting ladies down to indoctrinate them.

  26. VFM #7916 says:

    With the qualifier that I’m not well versed in doctrine or theological principles, I can offer a summation:

    Dafuq did I just read?

  27. Hmm says:

    “According to wikipedia, the Episcopal church has almost 1.8 million members in the US, which is declining at an annual rate of about 3%, with a paltry 600K attending services on Sunday (that number is dropping even faster).”

    Given the average age of Episcopalians, one stiff round of influenza would cut their membership in half.

  28. Anon says:

    It is interesting to see Micha Elyi back here. He was a staunch ‘NeverTrump’ loon, who vanished after Trump won.

  29. Cloudbuster says:

    “Mother bear” … “Born of the bad-ass womanist liberation theologian, Mary” … FFS. You can’t parody this garbage anymore.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    The argument that conservative feminists are opposed to feminism boils down to a form of motte and bailey. Define “feminism” as “pro-abortion and pro-lesbian marriage”, for example, then it is easy for conservative feminists to burnish their anti-feminist credentials. Just don’t notice that those same “anti feminists” have no problem with Title IX, with VAWA, with the Duluth wheel, with affirmative action for women even when women are already a majority in some field, etc. all of which are 1970’s second stage feminism.

    It’s even better when “anti feminist” churchgoing women are in support of women as deacons, elders, bishops, preachers, etc. Motte / bailey is even more obvious.

  31. Cloudbuster says:

    For a fairly well-known use of Sophia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

  32. The Question says:

    With this in mind, I’m not terribly upset they removed the president’s plaque, nor would George Washington – he would have wanted it removed a long time ago. This wasn’t a sudden about-face by a good church.

    People outraged about this should start up a fund to buy the church out when the current membership dwindles to unsustainable levels.

  33. Frank K says:

    It’s even better when “anti feminist” churchgoing women are in support of women as deacons, elders, bishops, preachers, etc.

    +1.

  34. Dalrock says:

    @donalgraeme

    not to stoke the fire too much on the faith tradition fight, but for Catholics and Orthodox scripture is still a reference point- just not the only one.

    Good point. Fixed.

  35. Opus says:

    Sophia is Greek for wisdom (but you all knew that) hence Philo-Sophy. The only Sophia that I can think of is La Loren and a lot of guys would surely get on board with the rewrite if that was the intended Sophia.

    It surely takes an enormous belief in ones self-importance (or as the Chosen-ites would say Cutzpah) to alter the second most famous prayer in Christendom and which has been recited for the better part of Two Thousand years, but then women are awesome. lol

  36. Frank K says:

    People outraged about this should start up a fund to buy the church out when the current membership dwindles to unsustainable levels.

    As I mentioned above, many liberal denominations have huge endowments and can afford to keep the doors open into perpetuity. I suppose that if there are zero members at a congregation that they might sell the empty building. I’ve seen a few that were converted into a private residence (mostly smaller ones).

  37. feeriker says:

    I hope everyone has figured out by now that Episcopalian != Christian.

  38. Bruce says:

    @ Frank

    “Kidding aside, anyone else notice how MLK Jr. is seldom referred to as the “Reverend” MLK and is usually called “Dr, King” in the secular media.”

    Yep, it’s always “Dr. King” in print, on TV, radio (Hannity), even here at work. It seems like dead people with EdDs, PhDs, etc. generally aren’t referred to as “Dr.” e.g. no one says “Dr. Einstein” when referring to Albert but MLK seems to get special treatment.

  39. earlthomas786 says:

    Had a couple of young ladies approach my wife at the Walmart asking her if she knew about “god the mother”

    These are dangerous women.

    I’d tell them I know God the Father and I know the Mother of God…but there is no god the mother.

  40. Bruce says:

    “Those who seek to depart the Episcopalian innovations of men and women that have no basis in Sacred Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition are welcome to discover the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter within the Holy Catholic Church’s Western Rite.”
    I second Micha Elyi’s recommendation. I know some of the ordinariate clergy and they’re top notch. The liturgy is very reverent. Some parishes have charters for Troops of St. George a Catholic alternative to boy scouts that only allows men and boys.
    An ordinariate priest I know of is a U.S. Marine and former SWAT team member if that gives you an idea what they’re like

  41. earlthomas786 says:

    Born of the bad-ass womanist liberation theologian, Mary” … FFS. You can’t parody this garbage anymore.

    No kidding. This just shows they have no clue who Mary is and are projecting onto her who they are.

  42. Oscar says:

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that every denomination that ordains women devolves into apostasy, blasphemy, and support for homosexuality and abortion.

  43. Steve Canyon says:

    Put Smokey the Bear in clerical garb with the tag line “Only You Can Prevent Heretics”

  44. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Steve Canyon
    Put Smokey the Bear in clerical garb with the tag line “Only You Can Prevent Heretics”

    I like it. Except that this would probably end up being a Smokey who had some fondness for starting fires, IYKWIMAITYD.

  45. Boxer says:

    Dalrock:

    There are articles you write that seem as though they must be rhetorical hyperbole on your part. Then I do some research, and realize that people are actually doing this whacked out shit.

    Freud wrote something, someplace, about pre-patriarchal religion, which was full of human sacrifice, drinking vaginal fluid and blood, and other such taboo breaking. We’re going back there, full steam ahead!

    P.S. I thank whoever removed George Washington’s statue. No question he wouldn’t have wanted any part of this nonsense.

    Sophia is Greek for wisdom (but you all knew that) hence Philo-Sophy. The only Sophia that I can think of is La Loren and a lot of guys would surely get on board with the rewrite if that was the intended Sophia.

    It’s probably a poor allusion to Boethius’ symbolic goddess. I suspect you knew that.

    Best,

    Boxer

  46. Pingback: Womanist Apostle’s Creed | Reaction Times

  47. earlthomas786 says:

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that every denomination that ordains women devolves into apostasy, blasphemy, and support for homosexuality and abortion.

    One book I’ve read (Ungodly Rage) which really went down the rabbit hole on how feminism is basically an occult-witchcraft type of religion which destroys the faith of Christians. And like you said all those things you mention is what happens when women gain a leadership or authortiarian role in the churches.

    ‘Written by a Catholic journalist who has investigated feminism on its own ground, this remarkable book fully exposes the hidden face of Catholic feminism for the first time, revealing its theoretical and psychological roots in loss of faith. Extensively documented, this is the definitive account of a movement impelled by vengeful rage to revolt against all spiritual authority, providing detailed information on Catholic feminist theologians, organizers, the movement’s defense of abortion, its connections with witchcraft and New Age rituals, and its disastrous effects on the Catholic faithful.

    This book should be welcomed by Catholic men and women striving to understand the disarray in the Church, and what can be done about it.’

  48. Lost Patrol says:

    People outraged about this should start up a fund to buy the church out when the current membership dwindles to unsustainable levels.

    I’m now wondering if such churches will dwindle in numbers after all. As they’re going from lukewarm to cold they’ve lost their way and the flock begins to scatter and die off; but as strong, empowered, womanist churches they may actually gain new recruits. Women priests and pastors leading the faithful in worship of goddess mother bear – that is going to bring in some converts. I’d say it would be a church just for women, except there will be pajama boys there also I’m sure.

  49. Anon says:

    It begins :

    The dangers of Tech-bro AI.

    I don’t have a dystopian view of AI. I don’t see killer robots. I’m so much more focused on the narrow applications, and I think that if you look at every single one of those narrow applications there is a chance that it negatively affects women. I don’t think artificial intelligence is the issue here;”

    Every single sentence starts with ‘I’. Yet this femtwat thinks that if AI comes to gender-realistic conclusions, it is wrong.

    Related :
    AI coming to ‘sexist’ conclusions.

    As some of us have often said, AI is going to be a disaster for the FI. This is already obvious, even at such an early stage.

    Is Ray Manta here today?

  50. Oscar says:

    @ Earl

    “… feminism is basically an occult-witchcraft type of religion which destroys the faith of Christians.”

    I can’t argue with Ms. Steichen. Feminists take the name Jezebel for themselves like it’s something to be proud of! In the Bible, Jezebel is synonymous with rebellion, idolatry, sexual immorality and witchcraft, and these women wear that name with pride!

  51. Jeff Strand says:

    Don’t Protestants claim the right to a personal interpretation of Scripture? So when, inevitably, some other Protestant interprets it differently than you, how can you claim they are objectively wrong? You can only say that they are wrong IN YOUR (completely falliable) OPINION.

    So as one commenter said, it is truly ironic that this post appeared today, on the 500 year anniversary of Luther’s rebellion. Because this was already happening in Luther’s own day – he railed against fellow his fellow “new men” who differed with him on doctrine, which they based on THEIR personal interpretation of Scripture. Luther was furious, because he was sure he was right and wanted all to follow his new teachings.

    But the other Reformers quite logically asked of him, “Who made you pope?” In other words, if we’re going to abandon the authority of the pope, who at least has 1500 years of unbroken successorship going back to St. Peter himself, why would we then submit to the authority of a de-frocked, excommunicated, German, Augustinian monk…who renounced the solemn vows he took and married an ex-nun he enticed to abandon her solemn vows?

    The logic of the question is devastating. Luther had no good answer, but would just rail and gnash his teeth that he, Martin Luther, “would have it so” and that he was “a doctor above all the doctors of popedom.” Not surprisingly, arguments of this sort were convincing to no one then…and they are not convincing now.

    So the point is that the teaching of any kind of doctrine (even God as “Mother Bear”) as the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ is not merely incidental to the outbreak of Protestantism, where every man is his own pope (actually, much more than merely a pope – no pope can invent new doctrines or throw old ones out. A pope does not have such authority). Rather it is automatic and inevitable. There is no guide for determining what is true and what is heresy. This leads directly to doctrinal chaos and anarchy, as there is no Rule of Faith (the Bible cannot serve as the rule of faith, since everyone can interpret it differently. History has proven this, abundantly!)

    So you get ridiculousness like this Mother Bear garbage. As Trump would tweet, Sad!

  52. Frank K says:

    Yep, it’s always “Dr. King” in print, on TV, radio (Hannity), even here at work. It seems like dead people with EdDs, PhDs, etc. generally aren’t referred to as “Dr.” e.g. no one says “Dr. Einstein” when referring to Albert but MLK seems to get special treatment.

    I suspect that relabeling MLK from “Reverend” to “Dr.” was a ploy to secularize the civil rights movement. You also rarely hear Jesse Jackson addressed as “Reverend”, though in his case that might be a good thing.

  53. Boxer says:

    Don’t Protestants claim the right to a personal interpretation of Scripture? So when, inevitably, some other Protestant interprets it differently than you, how can you claim they are objectively wrong? You can only say that they are wrong IN YOUR (completely falliable) OPINION.

    That’s not true. It’s a fact that you can have multiple interpretations of a text, but that doesn’t render the text meaningless. I wrote about this a little bit here:

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/marry-and-reproduce/

    Basically, context is something, but it isn’t everything.

    I try to keep my Marxist Critique of Ideology shades on when I read important books (like the New Testament), but there’s always a little bit of self-serving color that gets through the lenses. Sure, the discipline says I should have self control, but that woman’s butt is so shapely I can’t help but gaze in awe and admiration… never mind that she’s married. Jesus would understand, etc.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  54. Tarl says:

    Good God. If I’d had to bet on “parody or real”, I would have put money on parody every time. But no…

  55. Tarl says:

    ‘The theological concept of Sophia, usually seen as replacing the Holy Spirit in the Trinity , is often used to fulfill this desire for symbols which reflect women’s religious experiences. How Sophia is configured is not static, but usually filled with emotions and individual expression.

    Short version: Sophia = muh feelz.

  56. Tarl says:

    “Kidding aside, anyone else notice how MLK Jr. is seldom referred to as the “Reverend” MLK and is usually called “Dr, King” in the secular media.”

    On formal occasions and on High Holy Days of Diversity, Saint Martin is referred to as “The Revered Doctor Martin Luther King Jr”.

  57. earlthomas786 says:

    Short version: Sophia = muh feelz.

    If anything…they just put a name to it.

    I mean they could name them Jezebel for all we care…it’s all about their feels are god.

  58. Hrodgar says:

    Most of the time I’ve seen Sophia it’s been in various Gnostic texts. Gnostics being the sort to regard anything so prosaic as reason or logic or words having stable definitions as being the province of unenlightened chumps, it can be hard to figure out exactly what it is they actually believe, but Sophia is conflated variously with the Holy Spirit, the bride of Christ, Christ himself, the “world-mother,” the earth itself, Wisdom as described in Proverbs and Sirach and other books, and probably some others that I’ve missed or forgotten. I wouldn’t recommend wasting much time on the subject: we’re talking the same people who convinced themselves that the serpent was really a misunderstood hero trying to free us from the prison of the material world in which we had been trapped by an evil creator, after all.

    As if feminism wasn’t bad enough by itself.

  59. Anon says:

    Wired Magazine, August 2017 :

    Machines learn sexist views of women.

    Since so much of this data is from photos, meaning a lot is from overseas, where there is just not enough surplus economic output to finance the endless artificial illusions of ‘feminism’, there is no amount of ‘feminist’ corrective action that can overpower this.

    The US has spent over $80 Trillion over the last 30 years just to transfer wealth from men to women. This is about $800,000 per adult woman, 1987-present, and is far more front-weighted to the present. Yet, that amount of money cannot suppress AI. AI is still finding out what the truth is, and is acting accordingly. As AI diffuses into millions of small decisions, the natural order will return.

    This disruption will be glorious.

  60. Oscar says:

    @ Jeff Strand says:
    October 31, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    “… the Bible cannot serve as the rule of faith, since everyone can interpret it differently.”

    If that’s true, then neither can the Pope’s – or any other authority’s – word serve as the rule of faith, since their words can also be interpreted/misinterpreted an infinite number of ways by their followers. And, after all, it’s the followers who actually carry out the leaders’ words.

  61. Boxer says:

    If that’s true, then neither can the Pope’s – or any other authority’s – word serve as the rule of faith, since their words can also be interpreted/misinterpreted an infinite number of ways by their followers. And, after all, it’s the followers who actually carry out the leaders’ words.

    Postmodernists are always sorta funny, in that they seem to masochistically enjoy being backed into various corners.

    One can debate interpreting the text as to what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, or whether it materially exists. One can debate the nature of God. One can not (in good faith) argue that the text defines God as a female animal (i.e. a “mother bear”). There’s no support in the text for any such thing. It just marks any member of this religious organization promoting this nonsense as an idiot.

    Boxer

  62. Bruce says:

    @ Oscar, “If that’s true, then neither can the Pope’s – or any other authority’s – word serve as the rule of faith, since their words can also be interpreted/misinterpreted an infinite number of ways by their followers.”

    I suppose one difference would be that living authorities can issue clarifications, write encyclicals, catechisms, etc.

  63. Boxer says:

    One book I’ve read (Ungodly Rage) which really went down the rabbit hole on how feminism is basically an occult-witchcraft type of religion which destroys the faith of Christians.

    Satanists and other Occult/Witchcraft type people ought to sue the author for defamation, for comparing them to feminists.

  64. pukeko60 says:

    The Episcopal church is trying to be one with the shakers, both theologically and in their future.

    Priestesses ruin everything.

  65. Boxer says:

    The Episcopal church is trying to be one with the shakers, both theologically and in their future.

    The Episcopal diocese in a town I lived in, years ago, was one of the wealthiest organizations in the state. It was largely because they sold a couple of hospitals to a private corporation.

    Note that Episcopal churches are managed largely by laymen and members. Imagine what would happen if a few committed, serious Dalrockian brothers got together and ruthlessly maneuvered themselves onto the board of directors of such a tax-exempt organization, with so many holdings, and so much infrastructure and political connections. Such men could do a lot of good once they dropped their masks, no?

    Boxer

  66. Pingback: Womanist Apostle’s Creed | Dalrock - Top

  67. feeriker says:

    On formal occasions and on High Holy Days of Diversity, Saint Martin is referred to as “The Revered Doctor Martin Luther King Jr”.

    He really foesn’t deserve to be referenced as anything other thsn Mr. Michael Luther King.

    1. His clergyman’s title was invalid, held under false pretenses. King admitted to several close associates over the course of his life that he had ceased believung in Jesus or Chtistianity while still an adolescent. The only reason he continued to wear the mask was that he believed that nothing beat the church as a platform for Social Justice Warfare.

    2. His doctoral thesis was plagiarized, which in a just world would result in his degree being revoked.

    3. He was christened Michael Luther King (as was his father) and never legally changed his name.

  68. stickdude90 says:

    Dalrock –

    There’s a typo in the title. Screed is spelled with an “S”. 😉

  69. Oscar says:

    @ Bruce says:
    October 31, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    “I suppose one difference would be that living authorities can issue clarifications, write encyclicals, catechisms, etc.”

    All of which can be interpreted/misinterpreted an infinite number of ways. Ultimately, EVERY means of communications depends on the recipient’s honest, logical, accurate interpretation.

  70. Frank K says:

    Women’s Apostles’ Creed? More like Apostates’ Creed.

  71. Frank K says:

    His clergyman’s title was invalid, held under false pretenses.

    Given that anyone can declare him or herself a Protestant minister and that even Protestants do not recognize the Sacramental nature of Ordination nor the need for Apostolic Succession, why would his clergyman’s title be invalid? Heck, even Unitarians have clergy, and they don’t believe in anything.

    Now if you’re saying that he was an apostate, well, no argument there.

  72. Frank K says:

    All of which can be interpreted/misinterpreted an infinite number of ways. Ultimately, EVERY means of communications depends on the recipient’s honest, logical, accurate interpretation.

    While people can be disingenuous, documents like encyclicals and catechisms tend to be very unambiguous on matters of faith. For instance, you would be hard pressed to argue that the Catechism makes a case for Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura.

    But it can also be said that many people have very different interpretations of what the Scriptures mean, and they are not being dishonest with their interpretations. It is worth remembering that the Church was founded before the New Testament was written, on Pentecost, and that the Church used non scriptural resources to separate the wheat from the chaff when it decided which books were canonical and belonged in the NT, and which ones were not.

  73. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer

    “It just marks any member of this religious organization promoting this nonsense as an idiot.”

    Or a deceiver.

    “Satanists and other Occult/Witchcraft type people ought to sue the author for defamation, for comparing them to feminists.”

    Ha! Fair enough!

  74. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K says:
    October 31, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    “But it can also be said that many people have very different interpretations of what the Scriptures mean, and they are not being dishonest with their interpretations.”

    It can also be said that many people have very different interpretations of what documents like encyclicals and catechisms mean, and they are not being dishonest with their interpretations.

  75. Jeff Strand says:

    Oscar said: “It can also be said that many people have very different interpretations of what documents like encyclicals and catechisms mean, and they are not being dishonest with their interpretations.”

    But it’s still not the same, because further encyclicals could be issued to clarify whatever questions have developed regarding prior encyclicals. But you’re not gonna have new Scripture to clarify whether, say, babies can be baptized or only believing adults. Or how justification works. How do you settle that, based on Scripture alone? Who’s interpretation is “right”? There is no answer, other than someone saying (like Luther) “Because I will have it so”.

    Disclaimer: I’m not advocating that anyone run out and join FrancisChurch. “Pope” Francis is clearly a heretic, and I suspect even an apostate/atheist. So I’m left in the awkward position of concluding that the Catholic Faith is the True Religion, but that the Church appears to have gone into apostasy since the Second Vatican Council. And Bergoglio is certainly not a valid pope. “The shepherd has been struck and the sheep are scattered.” So not sure where this leaves us.

    But the point remains valid, that religious anarchy and chaos was always the inevitable outcome of the Reformation. It cannot have been otherwise, sadly, as this outcome was “baked into the cake” from the very beginning of Luther’s rebellion.

  76. BillyS says:

    The current pope is such a wonderful example of faithfulness to the core meaning of Christianity after all….

    Give it a rest you RCC apologists. The RCC has many flaws and the Peter connection claim is flawed.

  77. Oscar says:

    @ Jeff Strand says:
    October 31, 2017 at 5:02 pm

    “But it’s still not the same, because further encyclicals could be issued to clarify whatever questions have developed regarding prior encyclicals. But you’re not gonna have new Scripture to clarify whether, say, babies can be baptized or only believing adults. Or how justification works. How do you settle that, based on Scripture alone? Who’s interpretation is ‘right’? There is no answer… ”

    Sure it is, because no matter how many encyclicals a church issues, the reader still has to interpret the meaning of the encyclical. Who’s interpretation of the encyclical is “right”? There is no answer.

  78. Frank K says:

    Give it a rest you RCC apologists. The RCC has many flaws and the Peter connection claim is flawed.

    Doesn’t it strike you as interesting that the RCC has endured for 2000 years, while Protestant denominations do not endure. Look at what’s happening with Evangelicalism. In no time flat it has turned into churchianity.

    Yes, the RCC is flawed, as everyone in it, from the top to bottom, is a sinner. It has had far worse Popes than Francis. What is amazing is that despite all the strikes against it, it’s still here, and it’s still relevant. Ditto with the Orthodox, who have survived Communism, corrupt bishops and priests who were communist collaborators, Islam, etc. By all rights it should have perished. Yet it also endured. The same can be said of the other ancient, apostolic churches: the Copts, the Syrians, the Armenians, etc.

    Meanwhile the Anglican communion is crumbling, as is Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, etc. Soon Evangelicalism will follow their journey into unbelief. The end point is Unitarianism.

  79. Frank K says:

    Sure it is, because no matter how many encyclicals a church issues, the reader still has to interpret the meaning of the encyclical. Who’s interpretation of the encyclical is “right”? There is no answer.

    Have you ever read an encyclical or the Catechism?

  80. Jeff Strand says:

    Oscar said: “Sure it is, because no matter how many encyclicals a church issues, the reader still has to interpret the meaning of the encyclical. Who’s interpretation of the encyclical is “right”? There is no answer.”

    You’re being obtuse. Look at the example I gave – should babies be baptized, or only believing adults? Scripture is vague, and different Prot. churches interpret differently and come to opposite conclusions.

    But the RCC can issue a papal bull, or encyclical, or council statement, etc…saying that yes, it is of the faith that babies should be baptized. The question is settled. Whereas the Protestants just have to keep debating it forever.

    So there is absolutely a clear difference. Hope that helped.

  81. Jeff Strand says:

    BillyS said: “Give it a rest you RCC apologists. The RCC has many flaws and the Peter connection claim is flawed.”

    I’ll do you one better than “flawed”. It seems pretty clear to me that the RCC has fallen into outright apostasy since Vatican II. And Francis cannot be the pope, since he has (and continues to) publicly taught what are clearly heresies (compared to prior RCC doctrrines and dogmas). So to say FrancisChurch is “flawed” is an understatement!

    OTOH, as I pointed out above, to me at least it seems obvious that the inevitable splitting of Protestantism into literally tens of thousands of different religions – from high church Anglicanism to Mormonism and Pentecostalism – makes laughable any claims that Protestantism is (or ever was) the True Religion.

  82. Anonymous Annoyed Reader says:

    But the point remains valid, that religious anarchy and chaos was always the inevitable outcome of the Reformation.

    This gets really old. Really, really, really old. I get that Catholics can’t proseltyze to anyone except Prots now, but this whole notion that re-fighting conflicts dating to the 13th century or earlier is a Real Good Idea somehow is amazingly stupid.

    Look, nobody here is quoting Jack Chick yet. But that’s probably next. There are thousands of other places on the internet to re-re-re-re-re-re-fight 500 year old arguments, there are very few sites where male / female interactions within the context of marriage can be discussed in an honest, no holding back, fashion.

    The constant, endless, tedious, banal, boring, “my denomination is closer to God than yours is”, “my reading of the Bible is holier than your is”, “my angels can dance on the head of a pin better than yours” conflict is such a waste of time. In so many ways.

    Here’s one: people under 30 are more and more likely to believe in astrology than in Christianity. Or Wicca. Or some other paganism. Does that matter to any of you purity-of-my-church debaters?

    Maybe y’all should take your energy that gets devoted to “mah church! Not yours! online and put it to use in the coffee shops near college campuses.

    As for the OP, we can agree tha women will ruin anything, and a church that lets them into positions of authority is doomed in the short run or long run. Right? Can we agree on that?

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    Frank K
    Doesn’t it strike you as interesting that the RCC has endured for 2000 years

    If you knew the history of your own church you would not write such an ignorant sentence.

    Do you really assert that the churches formed in the Eastern and Central Med in the 1st century AD were just exactly the same as the church system created in the 4th century by Roman general and Emperor Constantine? Do you really assert that the churches in Alexandria, Egypt in 500 AD were exactly the same as the churches in South America today? I could go on, with examples of “Holy vomiting” from some African branches of the RCC, but I don’t think you are up to the task.

    Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination. Just saying.

  84. Jeff Strand says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    For your edification:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    Frankly, if there is anything that makes me use the scroll feature here, it’s these interminable, never ending, religious “head of a pin” arguments. There’s nothing in them that benefits a churchgoing man or woman who wants to marry, nothing in them that would help the Average Frustrated Chump churchgoing Beta man who can’t figure out why his wife has become a bitch on wheels & all the advice he gets from every source labeled “christian” fails to work.

    There’s nothing in the endless religious hairsplitting that would benefit parents who want to keep their daughter off of the carousel. Nothing that would give a married woman any reason to not go EPL.

    Nothing, in short, that has anything to do with anything beyond “Me right! You wrong!”.
    Ok, I’m done. You all may re-engage with your demons on the head of a pin.

  86. Jeff Strand says:

    AR,

    Some of us are interested in objective truth.

  87. Robert What? says:

    Don’t forget the holy hand grenade.

  88. Bee says:

    This book by Wayne Grudem is very good. He has a chapter showing how women in leadership leads to hymns and worship of “God as our Mother”. The root of leftism and feminism is rebellion against the authority and position of God the Father.

  89. Lind wrote the following futuristic fantasy – intended as a look back from the 21st century – long before the Oklahoma City bombing. He did so, he said recently, “to show how high a price we may pay for a government that has become a ‘new class’ – contemptuous of the common culture, unwilling or unable to make things work and concerned primarily with maintaining its own privileged status.”


    The triumph of the Recovery was marked most clearly by the burning of the Episcopal bishop of Maine.
    She was not a particularly bad bishop. She was, in fact, quite typical of Episcopal bishops of the first quarter of the 21st century: agnostic, compulsively political and radical and given to placing a small idol of Isis on the alter when she said the Communion service. By 2037, when she was tried for heresy, convicted and burned, she had outlived her era. By that time only a handful of Episcopalians still recognized female clergy, and it would have been easy enough to let the old fool rant our her final years in obscurity. But we are a people who do our duty.
    I well remember the crowd that gathered for the execution, solemn but not sad, relieved that at last, after so many years of humiliation, the majority had taken back the culture. Civilization had recovered its nerve. The flames that soared about the lawn before the Maine statehouse that August afternoon were, as the bishopess herself might have said, liberating.
    In this Year of Our Lord 2050 we Victorians have the blessed good fortune to live once again in an age of accomplishment and decency. Most of the nations that cover the territory of the former United States are starting to get things working again. The cultural revival we began is spreading outward from our rocky New England soil, displacing savagery with civilization a second time.
    I am writing this down so you never forget, not you, nor your children nor their children. You did not go through the war, though you have suffered its consequences. Your children will have grown up in a well-ordered and prosperous country, and that can be dangerously comforting. Here, they will at least read what happens when a people forget who they are.

    http://skyseastone.net/jvstin/?p=3799

  90. seventiesjason says:

    The Reformation had to happen. It was bound to happen…..if not by Luther, it would have been someone else.

    It would not have happened if the Roman Catholic Church of that period had not become a bloated bureaucratic, top-heavy organization (the biggest “property holder” in Europe for one) that sold “indulgences” and had more than a few people that “did wicked things in the name and in the face of God” for quite a long period of time…..

    Luther I do not believe wanted a division, he wanted a serious debate in Rome and probably some sobering reflection. The Christian world was indeed turned upside down today 500 years ago…..

    But you would never know it from: The Salvation Army webpage. The United Methodist Church webpage, nor the Church of England, nor the Presbyterian webpage, nor the Baptist webpage…..nor the CBN webpage…..nor any of the countless non-denom ‘christian’ church webpages.

    I even asked my own Officer today about it not being a bigger deal…I mean…..the birth of Protestantism happened today. His sheeple reply?

    “Well, Luther hated Jews…..and we don’t want to offend or make Jews upset…”

    Wow. Just wow. Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel in the early 1980’s was a Zionist terrorist back in the 1940’s. Blew up the King David Hotel unapologetic to the day he died. Killed not Muslims, or native Palestinians…..no…….killed a good portion of the British Command of Palestine.

    But we Protestants wouldn’t want to “dare” ever offend anybody! Exactly why it’s dying and devolves into unitarianism.

  91. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    earlthomas786: One book I’ve read (Ungodly Rage) which really went down the rabbit hole on how feminism is basically an occult-witchcraft type of religion which destroys the faith of Christians.

    Another good book is Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, which exposes Wicca as a modern, made-up religion, based upon fake history: https://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Unmasked-Neopagan-Feminist-Spirituality/dp/1890626201/

  92. Novaseeker says:

    Frankly, if there is anything that makes me use the scroll feature here, it’s these interminable, never ending, religious “head of a pin” arguments.

    I agree.

    I have strong views on these issues like everyone else does, but that isn’t the topic of this blog, and there are plenty of other places on the internet where people who are so inclined can have these endless debates (hint: you won’t convince anyone anyway). It’s annoying when it derails things endlessly, but I just scroll past it.

  93. Spike says:

    Isn’t there such a thing as blasphemy and heresy anymore?
    The Protestant faith was built on the doctrine of believers interpreting the Bible for themselves (the printing press, having played a massive part in the Reformation) but the Reformer’s cry was, after all, ”Sola Scritura”.
    The Protestant faith was built on yet another pillar: that the existing orthodoxy was a heresy that, according to Scripture was wrong.
    That heresy was exposed.
    Now, heresies seem to be delighted in.

  94. gunnerq says:

    seventiesjason @ 7:52 pm:
    “The Reformation had to happen. It was bound to happen…..if not by Luther, it would have been someone else.”

    Luther wasn’t really the father of the Reformation. Gutenberg was. Once people had access to affordable copies of Scripture, it was only a matter of time until people realized that priests were human, too… and had grown poisonously disobedient against God while nobody was watching. Luther was only the match that set it off.

    Once the misconduct of Rome was exposed, in particular the institutional simony that Luther denounced in the 95 Theses, the clergy had a choice. They could admit to the people that the hierarchy was indeed rotten like a compost heap, that clergy were not supernaturally better believers than laymen and that Scripture didn’t require a centrally trained professional to understand; or, they could double down and persecute the dissidents.

    America was founded by Christians fleeing Catholic persecution. The RCC has never apologized.

    Let me run a little experiment. Catholics, please describe something you appreciate about Protestantism. Something admirable you’ve seen us do in the last half-millennium. Anything.

    I’ll even go first. Catholic monasteries were critical to the preservation of culture and history and played important roles in the West’s development while giving unwanted men a worthy home. It produced many excellent scientists like Copernicus and Mendel. It organized resistance against Muslim invaders and charity towards the victims of famine and plague. These are not the words of someone who wants to hate Catholics.

    For just one day out of 500 years, please appreciate us and our accomplishments. This will convince us that underneath all the noise about our differences, you consider us brothers in Christ. The Catholics who came before you did not.

  95. info says:

    ”I believe in God, our Mother Bear”
    So Pagan.

    @GunnerQ
    Unless specifically specified the discussion should best be avoided given it just hijacks every thread veering far from original topic.

  96. info says:

    @Jeff Strand
    ”But the point remains valid, that religious anarchy and chaos was always the inevitable outcome of the Reformation. It cannot have been otherwise, sadly, as this outcome was “baked into the cake” from the very beginning of Luther’s rebellion.”

    Don’t hijack the thread with your pet peeve.

  97. earlthomas786 says:

    As for the OP, we can agree tha women will ruin anything, and a church that lets them into positions of authority is doomed in the short run or long run. Right? Can we agree on that?

    Well a woman who follows or worships her feelings will ruin anything.

    Besides, any denominiation I’ve seen with a female pastor…is always about social justice. It’s not about Christ anymore.

  98. adam says:

    Look at how the Episcopal Church is redefining and expanding marriage.
    https://www.episcopalchurch.org/posts/publicaffairs/task-force-study-marriage-reports-progress

    They are going beyond introducing a new liturgy for same-sex marriages, a position we knew they had, to also add a new service for those that “seek to form and formalize a special relationship with one another that is unconditional and lifelong, but is nevertheless something different than a marriage in that it does not include the merging of property, finances, or other civil legal encumbrances, in order to protect against personal and familial hardship.”

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  99. Luke says:

    Apt — from Lt. Col. (USMC) William Lind’s 4th Generation Warfare novel “Victoria”:

    “The triumph of the Recovery was marked most clearly by the burning of the Episcopal
    bishop of Maine.
    She was not a particularly bad bishop. She was in fact typical of Episcopal bishops of
    the first quarter of the 21st century: agnostic, compulsively political and radical, and
    given to placing a small idol of Isis on the altar when she said the Communion
    service. By 2055, when she was tried for heresy, convicted, and burned, she had
    outlived her era. By that time only a handful of Episcopalians still recognized female
    clergy, it would have been easy enough to let the old fool rant out her final years in
    obscurity.
    The fact that the easy road was not taken, that Episcopalians turned to their difficult
    duty of trying and convicting, and the state upheld its unpleasant responsibility of
    setting torch to faggots, was what marked this as an act of Recovery. I well remember
    the crowd that gathered for the execution, solemn but not sad, relieved rather that at
    last, after so many years of humiliation, of having to swallow every absurdity and
    pretend we liked it, the majority had taken back the culture. No more apologies for
    the truth. No more “Yes, buts” on upholding standards. Civilization had recovered its
    nerve. The flames that soared above the lawn before the Maine State House were, as
    the bishopess herself might have said, liberating.
    She could have saved herself, of course, right up until the torch was applied. All she
    had to do was announce she wasn’t a bishop, or a priest, since Christian tradition
    forbids a woman to be either. Or she could have confessed she wasn’t a Christian, in
    which case she could be bishopess, priestess, popess, whatever, in the service of her
    chosen demons. That would have just gotten her tossed over the border.
    But the Prince of This World whom she served gives his devotees neither an easy nor
    a dignified exit. She bawled, she babbled, she shrieked in Hellish tongues, she pissed
    and pooped herself. The pyre was lit at 12:01 PM on a cool, cloudless August 18th, St.
    3
    Helen’s day. The flames climbed fast; after all, they’d been waiting for her for a long
    time.
    When it was over, none of us felt good about it. But we’d long since learned feelings
    were a poor guide. We’d done the right thing.”

  100. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K says:
    October 31, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    “Have you ever read an encyclical or the Catechism?”

    Yes.

  101. Oscar says:

    @ Jeff Strand says:
    October 31, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    “You’re being obtuse.”

    No, you’re missing my point.

    “But the RCC can issue a papal bull, or encyclical, or council statement, etc…saying that yes, it is of the faith that babies should be baptized. The question is settled.”

    Right. And no two Popes have ever contradicted each other.

  102. seventiesjason says:

    It was “mentioned” for just over two minutes on German television “tagesschau” (Day Show). Done in the typical dry, German news manner. I speak German fluently, and it didn’t really focus enough on the ripple and history change not only for feudal Germany but for the world. Here is the clip, and I’ll drop it now:

  103. evilwhitemalempire says:

    Now I know why God made me an atheist.

  104. Jeff Strand says:

    Info said: “Don’t hijack the thread with your pet peeve.”

    My apologies if it came off that way.

  105. He has a chapter showing how women in leadership leads to hymns and worship of “God as our Mother”. The root of leftism and feminism is rebellion against the authority and position of God the Father.

    It’s all about smashing the patriarchy and replacing it with some tyrannical mother. Even though it’s not the truth nor will it ever be.

  106. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Found this personal ad on Craigslist. SO MANY red flags: https://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/w4m/d/single-mom-to-2-wonderful-kids/6369135154.html

    Single mom to 2 wonderful kids (los angeles)

    looking for a NSA hookup, and who knows maybe more. On bc so no need for condoms, honestly doesn’t feel the same. Rather go all natural.

    I guess by “on bc” she means “on birth control.”

    Personal ads look so different through red pill eyes.

  107. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    gunnerq: America was founded by Christians fleeing Catholic persecution.

    ???

    I thought the Pilgrims and Puritans were being persecuted by Anglicans.

    I remember a passage in The Scarlett Letter wherein there’s a remark that the Purtians in America were happy once Oliver Cromwell ruled England. It even stemmed the tide of Puritan immigration to the New World, since the Puritans were happy in England while Cromwell was in power.

    Catholics, please describe something you appreciate about Protestantism. Something admirable you’ve seen us do in the last half-millennium. Anything.

    I think “Amazing Grace” is a very nice song. And “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Both Methodist, I think.

  108. Personal ads look so different through red pill eyes.

    It takes the red pill to be disgusted by that behavior?

    This is where chastity for both men and women are a good thing. Rather than looking to get your lust fulfilled…you see the person better for who they are. If that behavior doesn’t revolt you, something is off.

  109. feeriker says:

    Found this personal ad on Craigslist. SO MANY red flags:

    In saner times past, a woman like that would have had her children taken away from her.

  110. Bruce says:

    This isn’t Protestant bashing- this is a sincere question and I’m open to your answers-if it matters I’m an on-the fence Anglican Catholic.

    How do you settle ambiguous issues when there is no authority to interpret the text in a definitive manner (and I assume tradition isn’t authoritative either in Protestantism)? I mean “settle” both at the societal level and as an individual who has to practice his faith.

    One approach I see is simply to focus on the unambiguous fundamentals: “repent, believe and turn from your sins” i.e. the basics of the Gospel. Do the correct understandings on ambiguous mattes follow from this or does it simply not matter that much – the basic understanding of the Gospel is all that matters?

    A real example is marriage and divorce. What constitutes a real marriage and when (if at all) can it be dissolved? I can imagine logical, sincerely argued interpretations of the text that range from Artisinal Toad’s position to the traditional Catholic postion. I have been arguing in my head as of late for a position mid-way between Toad’s position and the traditional Protestant position. How do I decide? By who I think makes the better argument in a comment thread? By the weight of tradition (“Protestants have traditionally beleived this”)? How do I know if my own internal biases have influenced what I decide?

    Does it simply not matter? You would think that a Christian’s understanding of marriage would matter- marriage seems pretty important in Jesus’ ministry. Yet it’s not clear to me that if I have the Gospel fundamentals correct that the correct understanding of marriage will follow.

  111. I feel a strong desire to invest in wood & petroleum products after reading that “creed”.

  112. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Bruce

    Did you get a chance to see this thread on Scott’s blog?

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/in-case-of-continued-interest/#comments

  113. Luke wrote:

    from Lt. Col. (USMC) William Lind’s

    I agree that the quote is apt, but I had been under the impression that William S. Lind has zero experience as an actual warfighter. I had thought that he was a civilian who was allowed to teach Marines. If you can document that he has actually served, please give a link.

  114. AnonS says:

    How do you settle ambiguous issues when there is no authority to interpret the text in a definitive manner (and I assume tradition isn’t authoritative either in Protestantism)? I mean “settle” both at the societal level and as an individual who has to practice his faith.

    Any issue is settled in philosophy and debate if it is able to be settled. The rulings of authority not based on this isn’t settled; they can change their mind later and reverse the ruling or they run up against the reality of human nature and it degenerates over time.

    Things are settled on the societal level with laws or sufficient community shaming/praise to create incentives and disincentives.

    One approach I see is simply to focus on the unambiguous fundamentals: “repent, believe and turn from your sins” i.e. the basics of the Gospel. Do the correct understandings on ambiguous mattes follow from this or does it simply not matter that much – the basic understanding of the Gospel is all that matters?

    A real example is marriage and divorce. What constitutes a real marriage and when (if at all) can it be dissolved? I can imagine logical, sincerely argued interpretations of the text that range from Artisinal Toad’s position to the traditional Catholic postion. I have been arguing in my head as of late for a position mid-way between Toad’s position and the traditional Protestant position. How do I decide? By who I think makes the better argument in a comment thread? By the weight of tradition (“Protestants have traditionally beleived this”)? How do I know if my own internal biases have influenced what I decide?

    Yes non-dom Churches basically only talk about the basics every week with some topical discussions on avoiding sexual sin aimed at men (but no encouragement to be young wives to the women). I eventually grew deeply bored.

    Marriage isn’t interpreted from scripture, it is a feature of human nature in reality designed by God that is brought up in scripture. It is the sexuality / resources exchange under patriarchy that every serious civilization practiced through all of history because it is the only thing that produces surplus and complex civilization in the game of survival.

    The Bible wasn’t given to answer everything or the Church given to answer everything; it answered one area of knowledge. It provided grounded axioms in which to start the process of seeking truth in the objective world.

  115. One should whistle as they scroll past the graveyard of Real Church debate.

    or

    D’Ya ever notice the similarities between the debates about the Real Church, and the debates born of well known AND tedious feminist scripture mining?

  116. Magister says:

    I can’t speak for Washington, but I wouldn’t want my shrine associated with that den of pigs.

  117. Lost Patrol says:

    @ gaikokumaniakku

    You’re right that Lind is not USMC, but gets invited a lot, has written a lot about Marines, and is a current member of the Marine Corps University Foundation, so there is occasional confusion about it.

  118. two crows says:

    @gunner

    From a historical basis I’d disagree with your assertion about the founding. But that is a thread topic derailer. If you want I’d love to talk about history personally and we can exchange email later.

    As a Catholic, living in the south I’ve personally witnessed heroic lives of Baptist clergy in living sacrificial lives caring for elderly and aged, with such compassion which can only come as grace from the Holy Spirit. They have impressed me greatly.

    Luke 9:49-50 is my opinion.

    With paganistic priestesses that formulate mother bear creeds as above it is clear who is trying to follow the Lord and the promptings of the Spirit to their best and who is trying to remake God in their image.

  119. Jeff Strand says:

    However, in the spirit of Reformation Day, here are three of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther. There are many more available, of the same stomach-turning variety. When you become familiar with Luther’s own teachings, out of his own mouth and flowing his own pen, you cannot help but reach the conclusion that the founder of Protestantism was flat-out insane. Here you go:

    “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well of Jacob about whom St. John wrote. ‘Was not everyone around Him murmuring: What has He been doing with her?’ After that, with Mary Magdalene, and then with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus, even Christ, who was so righteous, had to be guilty of fornication before He died.”

    And

    “From morning to evening I do nothing and am drunk. You ask me why I drink so much, why I speak so loquaciously and why I eat so often. It is to fool the Devil who comes to torment me. … It is by eating, drinking, and laughing in this way, and then some more, and even by committing some sin, that I challenge and despise Satan, trying to replace the thoughts the Devil suggests with others, as for example, thinking with avarice of a beautiful girl or in a drunken stupor. Otherwise, I would be too furious.”

    And

    “A person that is baptized cannot, thou he would, lose his salvation by any sins however grievous, unless he refuses to believe. For no sins can damn him but unbelief alone.

    “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to commit adultery or even murder thousands of times each day.

    “Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.”

    And what the heck, here’s a bonus. His thoughts on the Jews:

    “If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”

    “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.”

    “Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand… If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused.”

    And his thoughts on the Decalogue, i.e. The Ten Commadments:

    “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart”

    “It does not matter what people do; it only matters what they believe.”

    “If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies”

  120. Jeff Strand says:

    Perhaps more directly on topic, given our focus around these parts on male-female relations and marriage, here are Luther’s thoughts on marriage. As you can see, on this topic he differed greatly from the position of the RCC, which upheld the indissolubility and sanctity of marriage and taught that marriage was a sacrament. Here you go, Luther’s own words:

    “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”

    “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.”

    “It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.”

    “Know that Marriage is an outward material thing like any other secular business. The body has nothing to do with God. In this respect one can never sin against God, but only against one’s neighbour.”

    “As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it.”

    “The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”

    “In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it. .. no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin.”

  121. 7817 says:

    This comment section is becoming unreadable.

    I enjoy your commentary on feminism and the church, Dalrock, but this Catholic/rebuttal proselytizing in your comment section is off topic and distracting.

    Vox was undergoing the same thing recently and had to ban people for it, if you need inspiration from another blogger maybe ask him.

  122. Bruce says:

    There are Catholics who say scandalous things too. A current bishop of the Church, connected with the synod of the family and, I guess by extension, the Amoris Laetitia position on divorce and remarriage, stated that we should be merciful like Moses, not rigid like Christ. Clearly a heretical statement if ever there was one.

  123. Jeff Strand says:

    Bruce said: “There are Catholics who say scandalous things too, etc. etc.”

    No argument here. As I said earlier, I have come to the conclusion that, sadly, the RCC went into apostasy at the time of Vatican II, in the 1960’s. And as far as Jorge Bergoglio, aka “Pope” Francis, he has made it very clear he is at least an obstinate heretic, if not an outright apostate. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn he is an actual atheist.

    So in no way, shape, or form would I recommend FrancisChurch to anyone.

    That being the case, what are we to do? Some, esp the redpill guys in the manosphere, have chosen one of the Eastern Orthodox churches, which they also praise as having more of a “manly feel”, and not being so feminized as FrancisChurch and most Prot. denominations.

    Others have chosen to seek out traditional Catholic Churches that have no connection to the Vatican II Sect and “Pope” Francis. These churches adhere to all RCC doctrines and dogma from BEFORE Vatican II, and maintain the traditional Tridentine Latin Mass from the Council of Trent (16th century). This is what I have elected to do, any my family with me. As a result, we have to drive 100 miles from home to attend Sunday Mass and receive the sacraments.

    I suppose we must all do what our conscience dictates.

    We live in lamentable times.

  124. American says:

    Jesus, the apostles, and the early church patriarchs provided us a definition for what “Sarah Moon [a heretic] ” is attempting; that definition is HERESY!

  125. Bruce says:

    Jeff,
    Not to nitpick but I think it’s incorrect to characterize the sedevacantist position as “the RCC went into apostacy” since this violates Christ’s promise as Catholics understand it. Rather, the sedevacantist belief is that Bergoglio is material pope but not formal pope i.e. the see of Peter is currently vacant.
    We have a sedevacantist parish about 20 miles from us. I have attended mass twice there. My only negative impression is that there was excessive focus (e.g. in the homily) on the “Bergoglio Church.”

  126. Annie says:

    @Jeff Strand:

    The quotes you’ve so gleefully provided do not shake our faith, because we do not follow the word of Martin Luther, we follow the word of God. God may have used Luther to point out things in the Catholic church that were clearly not according to His word, so it is certainly sad that later he begin to take his own way and follow after things that were against the word of God. But that doesn’t change the word of God; His followers are obligated to follow Him, not false shepherds.

    You insist that the RCC is the only true church, and there must be a pope in authority to establish doctrine, but then you yourself stated that the current pope is a heretic. Presumably this pope is making statements that are contrary to the word of God, therefore you do not recognize his authority over that of God. You’re just contradicting yourself.

  127. Bruce says:

    FWIW, the sedevacantist position is a small minority position even among Catholic traditionalists. I am not qualified to defend or refute it.

  128. Bruce says:

    @ Annie,

    As Catholics understand it, the Pope does not establish doctrine. The Pope has a negative charisma in the sense that the Pope’s job as shepherd is to defend the deposit of faith that the Apostles left. Defend this deposit from error & innovations. I merely want to see the Catholic understanding described correctly.

  129. Jack Russell says:

    The feminists and churchianity types might as well quit beating around the bush. We know what their end game is.
    https://michaelsavage.com/2017/10/31/more-students-young-americans-turn-to-paganism/

  130. Jeff Strand says:

    Annie,

    Not trying to shake anyone’s faith. Just pointing out what the founder of Protestantism believed, that’s all. If you believe he was wrong on almost everything, fine. So do I.

    Btw, what I didn’t post were quotes where Luther makes it clear there is no such thing as free will. We do what we do because either Satan or God seizes our Will and controls us, as a rider controls a horse. This necessarily means that man cannot be culpable for sin (of either actions or disbelief), so those unfortunates God condemns to hell are sent there through no fault of their own. This in turn means God is fundamentally unjust, which to his credit, Luther readily admitted…and therefore he called God a “tyrant” and a “scoundrel”. Luther further taught that since we have no free will and no way of knowing where God will send us when we die, then we should just “eat, drink, and be merry…for tomorrow we die.”

    And this denial of free will was not something minor, that he just mentioned in passing. On the contrary, he wrote a whole book about it, “On the Slave Will”. And insisted that this doctrine was a critical part of the Protestant Revolution, a basic foundation stone of the whole edifice. Other prominent Reformers such as Zwingli and Calvin agreed with Luther on this point, and readily attacked the RCC for continuing to defend the doctrine that God has granted to Man free will.

    Again, I have studied Luther’s own teachings…from his own mouth and his own pen. I have done so with an open mind. And I have concluded the man was probably insane (or close to it). You’d have to be, to teach such things.

    It is what it is. His words are extant, and cannot be wished away. Happy Reformation Day!

  131. earlthomas786 says:

    We have a sedevacantist parish about 20 miles from us. I have attended mass twice there. My only negative impression is that there was excessive focus (e.g. in the homily) on the “Bergoglio Church.”

    I always ask Sedes if Francis isn’t the pope…then who is. The church has pointed out antipopes in the pasts but they’ve also had a legit pope as well so that they could point out who truly wasn’t pope.

  132. BillyS says:

    Bruce,

    How do you settle ambiguous issues when there is no authority to interpret the text in a definitive manner (and I assume tradition isn’t authoritative either in Protestantism)? I mean “settle” both at the societal level and as an individual who has to practice his faith.

    I can’t say what everyone does, but I would do the following:

    – Read the text and meditate (think) about it.
    – Examine some of the original language as possible (parts are easy with modern technology).
    – Consider the idea in the context of the entirety of the Scriptures, not just that single verse.
    – Discuss with others who seriously want to find the truth. (See the Bereans in the Book of Acts.)

    This will still allow for disagreement of course, but is much more likely to come to the truth than trusting any “authority” to be absolutely reliable, something that has proven wrong over and over.

  133. Jeff Strand says:

    Annie said: “You insist that the RCC is the only true church, and there must be a pope in authority to establish doctrine, but then you yourself stated that the current pope is a heretic. Presumably this pope is making statements that are contrary to the word of God, therefore you do not recognize his authority over that of God. You’re just contradicting yourself.”

    You misunderstand me.

    I am saying that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, period. Because Canon Law clearly says that an obstinate, public heretic is cut off from the Church. In other words, no longer a Catholic. Which makes sense – from the point of view of the RCC, a Methodist is a Christian heretic, and so is not a Catholic. Who would deny this? Who would claim that a Methodist is a Roman Catholic? You see, it’s just common sense.

    So to believe Bergoglio is a valid pope, you’d HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT A NON-CATHOLIC CAN BE THE POPE. Which is clearly an absurdity…even more so than having a President who isn’t an American.

    This means Bergoglio isn’t actually the pope, yet he claims to be. This has happened before in history, it’s not unprecedented. Such characters are usually referred to as an “Antipope”. And clearly, Bergoglio fits the bill.

    I am not contradicting myself by refusing to accept the authority of an Antipope. If he’s an Antipope, of course I should reject any of his claims to authority. That’s perfectly logical and contains no internal contradiction. Hope this helps. To summarize:

    Man claims to be the pope BUT is a persistent and public heretic THEREFORE by Canon Law is not a Catholic THEREFORE is certainly not a valid pope THEREFORE is an Antipope THEREFORE has no authority over the Church or any of the Faithful.

    All perfectly logical.

  134. Peter Lonergan says:

    A previous commenter said,

    “All of which can be interpreted/misinterpreted an infinite number of ways. Ultimately, EVERY means of communications depends on the recipient’s honest, logical, accurate interpretation.”

    And while that is true, the real strength of Catholicism is a hierarchy with authority. When the pastor of an average non-denominational church (or an average mainstream protestant church) goes off the rails and preaches something that is in error, no one can correct him (or, in many cases, her). But when a Catholic priest, bishop, nun, or layperson teaches heresy, they can be disciplined and ultimately defrocked by the Catholic Church.

    For example:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/31/us-catholic-bishops-reiki

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/bishop-robert-morlino-cracks-down-on-madison-nuns-for-espousing/article_37f434d0-4325-11e2-a826-001a4bcf887a.html

  135. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl said: “I always ask Sedes if Francis isn’t the pope…then who is.”

    To which I answer, we have no pope. Unless he be hidden, which we cannot know. You might not like it, but that is the answer.

    Now I ask you a question. Bergoglio is obviously a public heretic, no one can deny this if he is honest. This means he is not a member of the Church, i.e. not a Catholic. So how can a non-Catholic be a valid pope?

  136. pukeko60 says:

    Jeff, the functional difference is not between the Papists and Orthodox and Reformed. It is between the beleivers and the non believers. There are too many heretics in every church, and they will try to get to the altar and they will try to get on the liturgical committees.

    You can easily find errors in Luther, Or Calvin. Or Aquinas. Or anyone else. We are not Christ. We are not God.

    Orthodox included: though most of this saw those tactics used by Stalinists so know them.

  137. BillyS says:

    Annie,

    John Strand follows men so thinks that the words of a man will shake the faith of others. Though he conveniently ignores all the words of the “key man” in the RCC because reasons.

    It is a waste of time to argue with him.

  138. BillyS says:

    You are at least consistent Earl.

    It is almost as if Jeff Strand is here to blunt the impact of what Dalrock writes. He acts like a plant by the feministas.

  139. Bruce says:

    BillyS,
    Using your methods, I still can’t come to a solid conviction on, say, the issue of marriage and divorce. Everyone here is pretty bright and has the resources you mention. We do not agree on marriage and divorce. Just when I think I have all the possible understandings of the text laid out, someone comes along with another one.
    Now it could be that it doesn’t really matter. That we just “do our best” or something like that and all that really matters is the basics of the gospel.
    But where I find Catholicism appealing is that I can know the teaching of the Church (if I really want to find out – lots of Catholics prefer to remain willfully ignorant or use their private judgment) assuming things like marriage, baptism, specifics on morals, etc. really matter.
    I also don’t think faith can be abstracted/separated from practice of the faith.

    Sorry if this is distracting. I don’t post to poke at Protestants – I just enjoy the discussion.

  140. Boxer says:

    But where I find Catholicism appealing is that I can know the teaching of the Church (if I really want to find out – lots of Catholics prefer to remain willfully ignorant or use their private judgment) assuming things like marriage, baptism, specifics on morals, etc. really matter.
    I also don’t think faith can be abstracted/separated from practice of the faith.

    While I love my Protestant and Jewish bros, if I were to convert to something and become religious, I’d choose the Cats as well.

    There’s something about the backbone of the priest, who is able (even in this sissified age) to tell people “No, it’s not OK that you got an abortion, and you need to quit whoring around and clean up, too…” That spine is missing among both Jews and Protestants… most of the leadership of both being perfectly willing to celebrate dyke marriages and bless abortion clinics. Moreover, if you ask a Catholic priest a question, he can generally back up his answer with some logical reasoning. Ask a Protestant minister a question, and he’ll tell you “I prayed about it and it felt right” or “I asked my wife and she gave me permission.”

  141. stickdude90 says:

    On the one hand, according to Jeff, the RCC can trace its authority directly back to Peter, so we should follow their teachings.

    On the other hand, also according to Jeff, the RCC has fallen into apostasy and is currently led by an antipope – despite being able to trace its authority directly back to Peter – so I presume that means we shouldn’t follow their teachings. Or maybe just ignore their teachings since Vatican II?

    I’m so confused.

  142. feministhater says:

    I’m unaware of any misgivings in the method used in selecting that current Pope used by the Catholic Church. He was not installed by a King or by a different faction against another Pope as with earlier anti-popes. As far as I’m aware, he required a two-thirds majority to be elected Pope and got it. Thus, by the Catholic Church’s own rules, he was directly called into being Pope by God, through his Cardinals, the leadership of the Catholic Church itself.

  143. BillyS says:

    Bruce,

    What are you looking for? Clear guidance that “divorce is always wrong and a man divorced against his will must remain celibate the rest of his life”? No such verse exists.

    This is a reasonable example to look at, though it also shows that absolute answers are often hard to come by, harder than most acknowledge.

    – Start with first principles: God made Adam and Eve to be connected for their life.
    – The Law allowed some divorce, but it was never desirable, just tolerated in certain circumstances. (Even the Jews debated exactly what those circumstances were.)
    – Jesus stated that adultery occurs after an improper divorce, but did not state that this adultery is ongoing, just that it happened. He noted that the woman at the well had 5 marriages, so he recognized all those as marriages.
    – A principle of God allowing us to walk in this world applies. Someone (like myself) who was divorced against our will is not in bondage to be single for the rest of our life, though remaining so is not wrong either. (I am sure this point would be disputed by many.
    – etc.

    Hope this shows the line of thinking in some ways. I believe my assertions are correct, though I am human and subject to human thinking. It is all reasonably logical.

    Note that Toad’s stuff is not as logical and is almost certainly just him playing the Alpha Male of the Group boasting about his 3 kickass lesbian wives. He was missing quite a few foundational issues as others have noted much better than I. (I really don’t want to debate Toad. Disagree with my assertion if you want to do so.)

    The key here is that we all struggle to apply this stuff to our lives. No one has a lock on the perfect place and that is what irks me the most about blanket statements about the RCC being ideal. I grew up attending both an RCC church and a Lutheran church for a while, and kept with the RCC until college until I couldn’t square some of their beliefs with Biblical Christianity. I had tied myself to the Word long before I left the RCC. They have some good principles and you can be reborn with the RCC, but it is more challenging for a variety of reasons I see.

    Hope this is helpful.

  144. feministhater says:

    Remembering of course that the Cardinals couldn’t agree in times past for such a long time that they had to make the rule of locking them away until they reached consensus. Seems these pious Cardinals are just as human as the rest of us. Just ask Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

  145. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    That spine is missing among both Jews and Protestants… most of the leadership of both being perfectly willing to celebrate dyke marriages and bless abortion clinics.

    Define “most”. You may be correct if you are talking about mainline (dead) churches, but you are not accurate if you look at the mass of even deluded churches Dalrock touches on. Even someone preaching about the beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women in their churches still don’t support lesbian marriage or abortion clinics. They may have serious flaws, but those are not among them.

  146. feministhater says:

    It is almost as if Jeff Strand is here to blunt the impact of what Dalrock writes. He acts like a plant by the feministas.

    He acts as a Jesuit would. Seeking to divide and sow the seeds of discord, he plays a game of sophistry, never stating exactly what he means. I warned you gents about him quite awhile back.

  147. Boxer says:

    Define “most”. You may be correct if you are talking about mainline (dead) churches, but you are not accurate if you look at the mass of even deluded churches Dalrock touches on. Even someone preaching about the beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women in their churches still don’t support lesbian marriage or abortion clinics. They may have serious flaws, but those are not among them.

    I don’t consider the “beautiful, beautiful, beautiful” preachers, which Dalrock lampoons, to be fundamentally different than the butch dyke pastors who bless the abortion clinic. The former run interference for the latter. All are on the same team.

    There are differences in the followers, which is irrelevant to your claim, but important to talk about anyway. That’s why this blog is useful. Some of the followers who are getting their ears tickled by the feminist preachers in the former camp are salvageable, and can be brought to our side. The latter camp, as you note, is dead.

  148. earlthomas786 says:

    Now I ask you a question. Bergoglio is obviously a public heretic, no one can deny this if he is honest. This means he is not a member of the Church, i.e. not a Catholic. So how can a non-Catholic be a valid pope?

    I can question it though. Where’s the proof he’s a public heretic.

    I”ve heard other claim that John Paul 2 and Benedict were also heretics. Often it seems like it’s their own judgements rather than any church authority stating it.

  149. Boxer says:

    I”ve heard other claim that John Paul 2 and Benedict were also heretics. Often it seems like it’s their own judgements rather than any church authority stating it.

    You’re the man to ask this question to: Isn’t there procedure for a trial and conviction to remove a pope? Sorta like articles of impeachment in the U.S. Constitution? It seems sensible to ask Mr. Strand to point to such a process before he pronounces his own insolent judgment.

    Incidentally, I’ve seen people, right on this comment section, claim that all Jesuits are heretics, too. (lol) – I just assume all such stuff is sour grapes. Sure, the current pope says stuff I disagree with sometimes. That doesn’t really mean he’s speaking ex cathedra, or that I should judge all of Christianity by his personal opinions. In the end, he’s just a guy with political and social views, like any other.

    Boxer

  150. Opus says:

    You read some amazing things on this blog. At 09.11pm yesterday gunnerq informs us that America was founded by Catholics fleeing persecution. I have checked. He is right except for two small things; firstly they weren’t being persecuted and secondly they weren’t Catholics.

    Or have I been willfully misinformed?

  151. stickdude90 says:

    I think you misread his comment. He actually said “America was founded by Christians fleeing Catholic persecution. The RCC has never apologized.”

  152. Glengarry says:

    Earlier I was content with advising the discontent to just leave, but now I think group of Christians should walk into that church, take down the cross, and leave. Might as well chase out the devils that now leer at the congregation too.

  153. earlthomas786 says:

    @Boxer

    You’re the man to ask this question to: Isn’t there procedure for a trial and conviction to remove a pope? Sorta like articles of impeachment in the U.S. Constitution? It seems sensible to ask Mr. Strand to point to such a process before he pronounces his own insolent judgment.

    The question is centered around if the pope is a formal heretic.

    The tl;dr version…no one can remove a pope, but a general council can pass the judgement that a pope is found to be heretical (with the corresponding criminal sentence of what the heresy is) and declares the pope has seperated himself. Just saying Vatician 2 isn’t enough.

    The article I found presents many different explainations about the papal office. Canon Law 104 states

    ‘“The First See is judged by no one,” thus making it impossible for anyone to remove an erring pope from his office…’

    Then later in the article:

    “Peters finds the canonical tradition expressed by Franz Wernz — a famed canonist who was elected as the Superior General of the Jesuit order in 1906 — who considered the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope in his work Ius Canonicum.

    After laying out various positions dealing with a heretical pope and showing their deficiencies, Wernz speculates that while no one on earth can remove power from a pope since there is no higher office than “Roman Pontiff” that is capable of passing such judgment, nevertheless, a general council could determine that a pope had committed heresy, and in doing so, had effectually cut himself off from the true vine, thereby forfeiting his office.

    Writes Wernz in his work published posthumously in 1928: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregarded, for it brings it about, not that a pope is ‘judged’ to be a heretic, but rather, that he is shown to have been found heretical, that is, a general council declares the fact of the crime by which a pope has separated himself from the Church and has lost his rank.”

    So this general council determines if the pope is found to be heretical.

    And to finalize even in the remote possibility there is a heretical pope…the church itself can’t fall into heresy.

    ‘Peters writes that “thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit” the Church, even during the reign of a heretical pope, “cannot fall into heresy.”

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canon-law-tradition-says-a-pope-who-commits-formal-heresy-ceases-to-be-pope

  154. earlthomas786 says:

    Incidentally, I’ve seen people, right on this comment section, claim that all Jesuits are heretics, too. (lol)

    The bad apples of Fr. James Martin, SJ(W) and the liberation theologists who are also basically SJWs certainly don’t make the group look good…but I would tend to judge the individual priests by their fruits and not what group they are in. In my experience…many Jesuits are on the SJW route and not the Gospel route.

  155. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “I can question it though. Where’s the proof he’s a public heretic.”

    Are you even serious dude? He said Luther “did not err on Justification”. He said Jews are saved and go to Heaven AS JEWS – no need to convert, be baptized and die in a state of grace. He said couples living in sin “have all the graces of marriage, I’m sure of it” if only they have “fidelity” (meaning they limit their fornicating to just one partner at a time). He said he “no one can be condemned forever” (effectively repudiating the doctrine of Hell), because “that is not the logic of the Gospel”.

    He said it is a “very serious sin against ecumenism” for a member of the Church to proselytize someone, i.e. to carry out the Great Commission. He said there is nothing to fear at the Judgment, because “God is Love” (never mind Our Lord Himself told us the great majority of mankind would be damned…this was the “broad road that leads to perdition” vs. “the narrow path that leads to life, and few they are who find it”.)

    He said that in the “parable” (his word!) of the Loaves and Fishes, the Lord did not actually multiply the bread and fish, because that would be “magic”. No, what actually happened was that everyone just shared what they had, and by sharing they realized there was enough for everyone. This was the “miracle” – a simple lesson about sharing. No supernatural acts were involved.

    He said the Blessed Virgin mentally accused God of lying to her when she stood at the foot of the Cross.

    I could go on and on, how much time do you have? This is not the Catholic Faith. To publicly teach such horrible doctrines is to brand oneself a public heretic.

    I dare you to tell me even one of those accusations against the Argentinian Apostate (cursed be his name) are false. Go on, do it. Because I have the source for every single one. Which you can also find, via simple Google searches.

    If you choose to accept the authority of a professed, public heretic…you will answer for it at your Particular Judgment.

  156. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    If you have time, go here for a whole laundry list of the Argentinian Apostate’s heresies and absurdities:

    https://novusordowatch.org/francis/

  157. Boxer says:

    Just wanted to get on and thank Earl for such a thorough and comprehensive answer. Knowledge is power!

  158. Jeff Strand says:

    Stickdude said: ,On the other hand, also according to Jeff, the RCC has fallen into apostasy and is currently led by an antipope – despite being able to trace its authority directly back to Peter – so I presume that means we shouldn’t follow their teachings. Or maybe just ignore their teachings since Vatican II?”

    I understand your confusion. Let me explain.

    No, the RCC cannot fall into error. We have the word of Our Lord Himself that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, founded on St. Peter, “the rock”. But what purports to be the RCC has clearly fallen into heresy since Vatican II. What does this mean?

    The only conclusion is that FrancisChurch is not actually the real RCC, but a false imitation. Which many saints predicted – that a false Church would come and would be the “ape of the Catholic Church”. The Blessed Virgin herself said at La Sallette that “the Church shall go into eclipse”, and that “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist.” She also said at Akita, Japan that “you will see Satan infiltrate the Church, so that there will be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal”.

    So I call FrancisChurch “the Vatican II Sect” or “the Novus Ordo”, to distinguish it from the real RCC, which existed from St. Peter to the death of Pius XII in 1958. The real RCC has gone underground, just as in the days of the Caesars. I and my family attend one such “underground” Catholic Church, that preserves he Faith pre-Vatican II, repudiates Francis and grants him no authority, and preserves the Tridentine Latin Mass. This is the True Religion.

  159. BillyS says:

    No, the RCC cannot fall into error. We have the word of Our Lord Himself that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, founded on St. Peter, “the rock”. But what purports to be the RCC has clearly fallen into heresy since Vatican II. What does this mean?

    Now the “No True Scotsman” defense.

  160. Opus says:

    Quite right stickdude99 but he is still wrong. As I understand things England which is where America comes from, to be specific a one way package tour organised from 59 Palace Street, Canterbury was in 1604 a Protestant State in that it did not, in true Brexit fashion acknowledge the authority of any over-mighty European – at that time the Pope. So they were not Catholics – at least not of the Roman persuasion – but Anglicans. As for persecution it was under the first Lord Protector who whatever you may think of him abolished Christmas and so that was hardly going to go down well with the general population. The only people who agreed were the Puritans, the very people who had caused so much trouble persecuting ordinary God-fearing people who simply did not agree with their political or rather religious correctness. These were the people who went to America because everyone was sick and tired of them. That is not persecution.

    America is not a country of immigrants nor is it a country of colonists nor for that matter a country of settlers. America is a country of Puritans, Fifth Monarchy Men and the like, people who could not get on in any reasonable way with anyone else.

  161. BillyS says:

    It depends on which time range you are looking at. The USA changes greatly from its founding.

    The early people were seeking to escape persecution, and often enact their own. I am not sure what direct role the RCC played, but it was a factor at least at some level.

  162. What gets me about this creed is that it is not only heretical and blasphemous, but it is also so poorly written. “Mother Bear”? “Bad-ass liberation theologian”? That almost makes the Message translation of the Bible look like poetry. Contrast with the simplicity and power of the actual Apostles Creed.

  163. @Heidi_storage:

    Calling “good evil” and “evil good” also goes right along with calling “ugly beautiful”. It shows up every time. Everything they do just ends up badly done and ugly.

  164. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    I had been meaning to post about Trump having been proven right with the iconoclasm now spreading to Washington; it didn’t just stop with Confederate symbolism. And I had also noticed that all the ‘clergy’ at that ‘church’ are women. Now as Dalrock highlights, we see how far the prog mainlines are going, coming up with a sacrilegious and blasphemous alternate trinity and creed for their flavour of churchianity.

    Good, because it makes the antithesis clearer.

  165. seventiesjason says:

    Yes, the “puritans” wanted to “purify” the Church so to speak….and England at the time was VERY happy to have them to “just leave”. Maryland was originally a Catholic colony. Georgia? That was the “penal colony” and Pennsylvania was of course originally for the Quakers who were just as troublesome at the time. Virginia was the “royal” colony. New Jersey was then, just like now a dump. Garden State? I’ll pee on a spark plug over that statement. Vermont ended up being privately owned property by a bunch of Welsh ruffians (Ethan Allen and His Green Mountain Boys). New Hampshire split off the Bay Colony……..sometime in the late 1600’s……Rhode Island was “a bunch of heretics” and North Carolina is of Sir Walter Raleigh fame (and according to John Lennon in the ‘im so tired’ song, he was pretty “stupid”)

    Where I grew up in New York State, it was first settled by the Dutch. I think the first “Dutch Reformed Church” in the New World is in what is now called ‘West Glenville’ along the Crab Kill. names like Amsterdam, Vhooresville, Schoahaire, Schatichoke, Renssealaer, Rotterdam, Van Vroost are the small towns and cities where I grew up.

  166. earlthomas786 says:

    Ah yes the novusordo site…I’ve been there before.

    I take their revelations with a grain of salt. They are sedes through and through and claim every pope since John 23 is invaild because of some Vatican 2 sect (whatever that is). To which I ask…where has the true pope been since the 50s? Where is the basis of an invalidly elected pope come from?

  167. earlthomas786 says:

    It should be pointed out…I’ve seen that site twist the pope’s words into something they can use to further their bias.

  168. earlthomas786 says:

    I and my family attend one such “underground” Catholic Church, that preserves he Faith pre-Vatican II, repudiates Francis and grants him no authority, and preserves the Tridentine Latin Mass. This is the True Religion.

    So who’s the authority? Pope No One?

  169. seventiesjason says:

    John Paul II was a very popular pope. Not in “fame” sense of going on the talk show circuit, but for the fact he was pretty solid on his stance with abortion. I am not Catholic, but I did admire him. He, I believe was the first non-Italian pope in almost 500 years…..Catholics please correct me if I am wrong………he was Polish, so of course for me with a very ethnic Polish last name probably made me related to him 😉

    He spoke in Miami in the late 1980’s, when we were visiting my grandfather who lived in Pompano Beach…….I remember a clip on the news down there……the pope was calling “liberal Catholics” from the north (New York City / Boston) “Catholicants” or some such term. I admired him also for being a STAUNCH anti-Communist…….he and Reagan were pieces in the puzzle for pushing to topple communisim in Poland.

  170. earlthomas786 says:

    I’d suggest reading about Pope John Paul 2’s life. He has quite the story before he became pope. Had to endure both the Nazis and Communist occupation of Poland. Worked in the factories when he was a teenager (knew about the working man) Was constantly being watched by the Communists when he was a priest and bishop. Loved to ski. Was devoted to Mary and the Eucharist. Was quite the actor in his youth too.

    I remember reading when he was still a bishop in Poland he would debate the Communists about Marxism and in his debates he knew about the ideology better than they did (obviously he wasn’t in favor of it). He was certainly the pope we needed to put the final nail in the coffin of the peak of Communism.

  171. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Yes, the “puritans” wanted to “purify” the Church so to speak….and England at the time was VERY happy to have them to “just leave”.

    Didn’t the Puritans want to purify the Church of England? So it was the CoE (not the Catholics) that persecuted them.

    By the time Queen Elizabeth was in power, the Puritans had more power in England than did the Catholics. The English Catholics were in no position to persecute anyone. The Puritans fleeing England were not fleeing persecution by Catholics.

  172. earlthomas786 says:

    Didn’t the Puritans want to purify the Church of England?

    Yes…the actual Puritan title came from the fact they wanted to ‘purify’ the CoE of some of the lingering Catholic traditions it had.

    Now the term is associated with prudes.

  173. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “It should be pointed out…I’ve seen that site twist the pope’s words into something they can use to further their bias”

    You know better than to make such a slanderous accusation without providing any examples. I’ll wait.

    Meanwhile, 2 questions for you:

    Do you deny your “Pope” Francis actually teaches the things I accused him of teaching, a couple of posts back?

    Can a non-Catholic be a valid pope?

  174. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘You know better than to make such a slanderous accusation without providing any examples. I’ll wait.’

    Have you ever cross examined their posts with second and third sources? In this era of ‘fake news’ you really shouldn’t take one source as be all and end all. I did that several years ago when I found them on twitter…I was intrigued with the site at first.

    I’m still waiting for your true pope to come out of hiding…why is he letting the church fall into apostasy? Even the underground Church back in the Roman times still had a pope.

  175. earlthomas786 says:

    Besides it’s not just Pope Francis…you also have to prove that John 23, Paul 6, JP1, JP2, and Benedict 16 were also all antipopes, noo-Catholics and heretics.

  176. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    So you refuse to give any examples to prove your slanderous accusation against Novus Ordo Watch. Nor will you answer my two questions, because to do so would be devastating to your position.

    Noted. Credibility gone. Just stop digging yourself deeper into a hole at this point.

    P.S. Here’s another quote form your “Pope” Francis: “If a child is hungry, needs love, needs shelter, needs education…feed the child, love the child, shelter the child, educate the child, and I care not what religion you bring him up in.”

    That’s your “Vicar of Christ”, LMAO! He doesn’t believe any of it! Now go ahead and accuse me of lying, and of falsely claiming Bergoglio said this when he really didn’t. I dare you to. (I have the source right here, ready to go)

    Go ahead and tell me how it’s not heresy to teach that it matters not what religion a person is taught, and believes, and practices. If you can convince yourself to believe such horsechit, that is!

  177. Ute67 says:

    This womanist apostles creed sounds like it was ripped off from Hollywood. They are a repackaged “Church of the Vuvalini”, from Mad Max/Fury Road. It’s just like those crusty old harpies living together in the desert with just other equally disgusting old harpies. Immortan Joe was wise to banish them from his civilization.

    http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Vuvalini_(The_Many_Mothers)

  178. Thornstruck says:

    John, set them straight.
    2 John 10
    10 If anyone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don’t invite that person into your home or give any kind of encouragement.

  179. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Noted. Credibility gone. Just stop digging yourself deeper into a hole at this point.

    P.S. Here’s another quote form your “Pope” Francis: “If a child is hungry, needs love, needs shelter, needs education…feed the child, love the child, shelter the child, educate the child, and I care not what religion you bring him up in.”

    You’d think Google would have something with that quote you presented:

    https://www.google.com/search?ei=wAb7WeT6LIjUmAHa8q_gDQ&q=Pope+Francis+%E2%80%9CIf+a+child+is+hungry%2C+needs+love%2C+needs+shelter%2C+needs+education%E2%80%A6feed+the+child%2C+love+the+child%2C+shelter+the+child%2C+educate+the+child%2C+and+I+care+not+what+religion+you+bring+him+up+in.%E2%80%9D&oq=Pope+Francis+%E2%80%9CIf+a+child+is+hungry%2C+needs+love%2C+needs+shelter%2C+needs+education%E2%80%A6feed+the+child%2C+love+the+child%2C+shelter+the+child%2C+educate+the+child%2C+and+I+care+not+what+religion+you+bring+him+up+in.%E2%80%9D&gs_l=psy-ab.3…6785.9296.0.9543.15.9.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..15.0.0….0.T4QjZvGI7iQ

  180. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘So you refuse to give any examples to prove your slanderous accusation against Novus Ordo Watch. Nor will you answer my two questions, because to do so would be devastating to your position.’

    I told you how to find out…cross examination. Perhaps if you did that it would be devastating to your position.

  181. buckyinky says:

    Jeff Strand,

    Discussions about the legitimacy of Pope Francis are understandably tedious, if not odious, for most readers here. It would be better taken elsewhere if taken up at all. However, from my view you don’t have so much a Pope Francis problem as an authority problem, which is very on topic for this blog. I doubt you’d see it this way, though. For what it’s worth to you I recommend Zippy.

  182. earlthomas786 says:

    Besides when you start down the road of rejecting papal authority…you are setting yourself up for willful schism. That doesn’t mean a pope is flawless or prone to sin…but you should respect the position he is in and certainly pray for him.

    http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/

  183. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘There is nothing illogical about drawing this conclusion about sedevacantists. Think about it: how can you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, if you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church?

    An important distinction needs to be made here, between disliking what a Pope says/does, and claiming that he is not really the Pope. If you’re Catholic, you don’t have to like the Pope or his predecessors; you just have to acknowledge that he is in fact the Pope, and as such he is the head of the Catholic Church on earth and thus our hierarchical superior. Far too many critical Catholics cross this line, and conclude that because they object to the words or actions of a Pope, that it’s somehow appropriate to question whether he holds the papal office or not. You’ll sometimes see them put the title of “Pope” in quotation marks to indicate their skepticism, like this group which still finds fault with “Pope John Paul II.”

  184. Jeff Strand says:

    Bucky,

    Perhaps you’re right. I’m probably just spinning my wheels with Earl anyway because he refuses to answer the very simple questions I asked him (like, can a non-Catholic be the valid pope) or to provide any evidence whatsoever for his slanderous libels against the good folks at Novus Ordo Watch.

    Earl, you can have your “Pope” Francis. Enjoy. And you can follow him, not only in his heresies, but in his stomach-turning blasphemies like this (here’s Bergoglio on the holy sacrament of Penance):

    “When we go to Confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again‘. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission to become the sinner for us, to liberate us”.

  185. Jeff Strand says:

    Well, one more thing. Here’s a list of heretical statements from Antipope Francis, juxtaposed with the actual teaching of the RCC. Shows clearly Bergoglio is a heretic, and keep in mind that by Canon Law a public heretic is not a member of the Church, i.e. is not a Catholic.

    So Earl believes that a non-Catholic is the valid pope! Lord, preserve us from such nonsense and absurdities!

    http://francisquotes.com/

  186. earlthomas786 says:

    No a non-Catholic can be pope.

    Now prove to me that Francis was never baptized into the Catholic faith or his ordination was invaild, Jeff. Should be simple if he truly is not Catholic.

    You obviously have a problem with papal authority.

  187. earlthomas786 says:

    Besides I’m still waiting for you to inform us who the real Vicar of Christ is. Where’s he hiding?

    I will give sedes credit for this…it’s a lot harder to constantly point out the heresies of Pope No One.

  188. Dota says:

    stickdude90
    That makes me wonder – are there female imams out there?

    There are a few in ultra leftist cities like Toronto, but despite the airtime they get they are largely ignored by most muslims and thus remain on the fringes.

  189. Kevin says:

    That is…hilarious. The early church subverted some pagan things into Christianity to make the transition easier. Now we are headed the other direction and incorporating some Christianity into the paganism to make the transition easier.

  190. Opus says:

    I was thinking …. about Cromwell (The first Lord Protector) and thinking that of course America never had a Lord Protector because it separates Church and State so that every Xmas some unfortunate township therein is prosecuted for erecting a crib of the goings on at Bethlehem in A.D. 00. The reason for that is the Puritans, It’s true I had my chronology somewhat out but the result remains,

    I was just looking (serendipity) on the net at a Park I once knew and looking at the photos one had the heading ‘The Memorial to Nine Martyrs’. Those martyrs being celebrated were surely not Catholics, but victims of ‘Bloody Mary’.

    Other things I have learnt in the last days or so: you call a Gramophone a Phonograph , a train driver an Engineer and most oddly the signalman is called the dispatcher. Very odd.

  191. earlthomas786 says:

    I’ll even give Jeff some ammo with this post that Francis isn’t the greatest pope the church has ever had. There was a priest who wanted clarification from the Pope on certain topic and wrote a letter to him.

    ‘Ousted Fr. Weinandy Explains Why He Wrote the Pope’

    https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/ousted-fr.-weinandy-explains-why-he-wrote-the-pope

    But I’ll also post the first part of this letter showing the priest respected the pope’s authority…he didn’t get a fair shake here.

    ‘I write this letter with love for the Church and sincere respect for your office. You are the Vicar of Christ on earth, the shepherd of his flock, the successor to St. Peter and so the rock upon which Christ will build his Church. All Catholics, clergy and laity alike, are to look to you with filial loyalty and obedience grounded in truth. The Church turns to you in a spirit of faith, with the hope that you will guide her in love. ‘

  192. earlthomas786 says:

    And I like this explaination too from the priest…the bad apple bishops who were hiding all this time are coming to light. There’s plenty of bishops especially in the US who I question where their loyalities lie.

    ‘ I have often asked myself: “Why has Jesus let all of this happen?” The only answer that comes to mind is that Jesus wants to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops. Ironically, your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness. In recognizing this darkness, the Church will humbly need to renew herself, and so continue to grow in holiness.

    Holy Father, I pray for you constantly and will continue to do so. May the Holy Spirit lead you to the light of truth and the life of love so that you can dispel the darkness that now hides the beauty of Jesus’ Church.’

  193. Opus says:

    It is easy when reading on the internet to forget that whatever may at any moment be troubling America is not automatically doing the same in Great Britain. I thus thought that I should explain how Roman Catholics are viewed in England; they are viewed with suspicion and thus not much liked and there is always the further suspicion that they are not fully loyal to the Crown. Catholics thus go out of their way to demonstrate that they are loyal. Most Catholics are either Irish, Polish or Italian refugees. There are few English Catholics (other than converts – there is attraction in that as the Anglicans descend ever lower into Marxist Feminism and parents will send their children to Roman schools because there is at least some real discipline and thus the possibility of academic advancement) and those old families (such as the Duke of Norfolk’s) who remained loyal to Rome from the time of the Reformation. I don’t think I have ever met a Roman Priest who was English (or an Anglican Vicar who was not).

    In England a first generation immigrant may become Prime Minister, a black brown or yellow person may be Prime Minister as may a woman, even a Muslim or Hindu may (I think) but if you are of the Roman persuasion you may not assume that office. The same goes of course for the Monarch who as you know is German (married a Greek).

    Our coins are marked in Latin Uberimae Fidei because that is what the Monarch is – Defender of the Faith – the title being given to the latest Henry by the then Pope himself – somehow it is hereditary at least that is how we treat it.

    Guy Fawkes Day is next Sunday! (poor oppressed terrorists)

  194. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “Now prove to me that Francis was never baptized into the Catholic faith or his ordination was invaild, Jeff. Should be simple if he truly is not Catholic.”

    Wow. Just wow.

    Are you truly that ignorant that you are unaware that it is long-standing dogma of the Chruch that all those who publicly embrace heresy or apostasy are automatically cut off from membership of the Church? Meaning that are now outside the Church, and therefore are non-Catholics?

    Are you truly unaware of this? And yet you obviously feel qualified to pass judgment on the good folks at Novus Ordo Watch, who know Church doctrine and Canon Law, inside and out!

    Amazing. The point is simple. Canon Law says public heretics are no longer Catholics. They are no longer members of the Body of Christ, because they have cut themselves off from it. Bergoglio is a public heretic, and this is beyond question. Therefore, he is a non-Catholic.

    Yet you claim Bergoglio is the valid pope, so you ARE claiming a non-Catholic can be a valid pope. (And IS pope, right now)

    Good luck with that. Follow your Argentinian Apostate (cursed be his name) into heresy and apostasy. Just don’t forget that cohabitating couples actively engaged in fornication “have all the graces of marriage”……and that Hell does not exist (“no one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel”)……and that the Gosepl writers lied when they said Our Lord literally multiplied the loaves and fishes (“He did not multiply the loaves and fishes – no not that! That would make Him magic! Instead, all learned to share, and when they shared they see there is enough for all”)……and that no one should try to bring non-Catholics to the True Faith because “proselytism is solemn nonsense” and converting others is “a very grave sin against ecumenism”……and that today’s Jews have no need to convert, repent of their sins, and be baptized into Holy Mother Church (as the Church taught for 1900 years), since as our “Elder Brothers in the Faith” they are automatically saved and assured of Heaven as Jews, while denying Our Lord and His Church…and presumably living in an objective state of mortal sin as well.

    I could go on and on. There’s your “Vicar of Christ”, ha ha! What a sick joke! Anyone who believes this sicko is the valid successor to St. Peter needs to give me a call about some prime oceanfront property I have for sale….in Kansas!

  195. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Amazing. The point is simple. Canon Law says public heretics are no longer Catholics. They are no longer members of the Body of Christ, because they have cut themselves off from it. Bergoglio is a public heretic, and this is beyond question. Therefore, he is a non-Catholic.’

    By who’s authority? Yours? Pope Francis hasn’t been excommunicated from the church. He might be heretical…but there has been no judgement handed down he’s a public heretic except in the court of NovusOrdoWatch opinion.

    I can also point this out in Canon Law that you are in schism if you deny the pope’s authority.

    Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

  196. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    Ok, so according to you it’s not heresy to deny the doctrine of Hell, to say that Jews go to Heaven as Jews (see what the Council of Florence had to say on that), to say that fornicating couples living together in scandal have “all the graces of marriage”, to say that the Gospel writers lied (!) when they said Our Lord literally multiplied the loaves and fishes miraculously, to say that converting others to the Catholic Faith is literally a sin (!), to say that “when it comes to Justification, Luther did not err”, and so on.

    According to you, I don’t have “authority” to say those are heretical teachings! (Any educated Catholic KNOWS they are heresies) LMAO! What about if this nutcase comes out tmmrw and says there are 8 Gods? You’ll still say, “we can’t know that’s heresy, he’s still the valid pope”, lol

    Your position is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

  197. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl: “I can also point this out in Canon Law that you are in schism if you deny the pope’s authority.”

    If there was a (known) valid pope, I would submit to his authority. I am willing. So I am not in schism.

    I certainly will not submit to the authority of Bergoglio, who, as a public heretic, is not only NOT the pope, but is not even a Catholic! No more than I would submit to the “authority” of Pat Robertson or Joel Olsteen or Joyce Meyer or you name it.

    Shame on you for upholding a public heretic as the valid Successor of St. Peter.

  198. earlthomas786 says:

    Shame on you for upholding a public heretic as the valid Successor of St. Peter.

    I pray for our Holy Father everyday, he needs it. I’ve read some of those statements you’ve brought up before and they are concerning…but I won’t ever claim he’s not the pope until the proper authorties deem him to not be pope. Not some website on the internet who makes some sweeping claim he’s an antipope without ever pointing us to the proper pope.

    If there was a (known) valid pope, I would submit to his authority. I am willing. So I am not in schism.

    It’s Pope Francis. As of now you are submitting to Pope No One.

  199. earlthomas786 says:

    Man I read the Church Militant, Regina Magazine, and all sorts of sites who bring up concerning stuff about Pope Francis. I’m not even a fan of a lot of what he says…but I respect he’s been elected into his position and is the leader of the Catholic church. Just like every pope before him.

    There’s been Presidents I didn’t care for either…doesn’t mean I can call them antipresidents and deem the presidency was vacant because I didn’t like their policies.

  200. gunnerq says:

    Two Crows, I put up a post on my blog thanking you for the compliment.

    Jeff Strand @ 4:21 pm:
    “According to you, I don’t have “authority” to say those are heretical teachings! (Any educated Catholic KNOWS they are heresies) LMAO! … Your position is morally and intellectually bankrupt.”

    Martin Luther? Is that you?

    For what it’s worth, I reject whatever kindness Pope Judas has for my side. Any other pope and I’d be thrilled for reconciliation but this one is unfaithful to Christ by any measure. Hence the feminists rewriting the measures as quickly as they can.

    They’ll die as they lived: thinking God can’t stop them.

  201. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    Just to be clear, if Francis started publicly teaching that Christ was merely a great prophet and not actually divine, you would still acknowledge him as the valid pope and submit to him as such?

    And FYI, there are no “proper authorities” who can judge the pope. There is no one above him. But if he is a public heretic, then by definition he is a non-Catholic and therefore obviously cannot be the pope. (Because it would be an obvious absurdity for a non-Catholic to be the pope). St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, taught this explicitly. Not sure how you are unable to grasp this simple point,

    Furthermore, you say some of Francis’ statements are “concerning”. Why will you not utter the word heresy? Is it not heresy to teach that there is no Hell, because “such is not the logic of the Gospels”? To teach that it’s a “grave sin” to convert someone to the Catholic Faith? To teach that cohabitating, fornicating couples have all the graces of marriage? To teach that non-Christians like Jews go to Heaven without any need to be baptized into the Catholic Faith or maintain a state of grace? To teach that “Luther did not err when it comes to Justification”? To teach that in Confession “we do not say sorry for our sins; we accuse Jesus and say this is your sin and I will sin again”? To teach that the Gospel writers LIED (!) when they said that the Lord literally and miraculously multiplied the loaves and fishes? And that the Church was in error for 2 millenia for also teaching this about the loaves and fishes?

    You know these teachings are HERESY. Not “concerning”. Not “troubling”. Francis is publicly professing and teaching heresy, which means he is not a Catholic, per Canon Law. Period. Bergoglio is a non-Catholic. And therefore cannot be the pope. Q.E.D.

    You know I’m right. You know it.

  202. earlthomas786 says:

    @ Jeff

    https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/what-saint-bellarmine-really-said-about-popes-and-heresy/

    ‘What Saint Bellarmine really said about Popes and Heresy’

    The tl;dr part

    ‘4. that the Pope, regardless of whether he can or cannot fall into heresy, cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church’.

    ‘Bellarmine then termed the fourth position “most certain, and to be asserted.” But this fourth position is often misstated and misunderstood. The fourth position is NOT that the Pope can fall into heresy, but cannot teach heresy. Rather, the fourth position is asserted without answering the question as to whether or not the Pope can fall into heresy. The fourth position is that the Pope absolutely cannot define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.

    The position of some Catholics today is a distortion of this fourth position. They claim that the Pope can define a heresy as to be believed by the whole Church, and that, if he does so, he ceases to be Pope, loses his authority to teach, and the definition is not of the Magisterium and not binding. They also claim that a Pope can teach heresy without defining a definition, as a personal opinion or as a teaching that is not a definition, and that again he would lose his authority and cease to be Pope. But this is NOT what Saint Bellarmine wrote. In fact, this position is essentially the second one above, which Bellarmine termed as “proximate to heresy”.

    So the writings of Saint Robert Bellarmine do NOT support the view of some misguided Catholics today about the Pope and heresy. Rather, his words condemn their position. He believed it probable that no Pope could fall into heresy, nor publicly teach heresy at all. He believed it certain that no Pope could ever define a heresy as something to be believed by the whole Church (regardless of whether he could or could not personally fall into heresy). He did not believe that a Pope could propose a heresy as if it were a definition of doctrine to be held by the whole Church.’

  203. earlthomas786 says:

    Just to be clear, if Francis started publicly teaching that Christ was merely a great prophet and not actually divine, you would still acknowledge him as the valid pope and submit to him as such?

    You mean Psilanthropism. You see I can name that heresy. Name the heresy you think Pope Francis is committing.

  204. Jeff Strand says:

    He said there is no Hell. Or in his words, “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel”. Is the existence of Hell now an optional belief in the Catholic Faith? This is heresy, pure and simple. You disagree?

    Also, since Francis said “On Justification, Martin Luther did not err”, I guess we could call that particular heresy of his…Protestantism.

    What do you call the heresy of calling the Gospel writers liars? Francis did just that, when he said the Lord did not physically multiply the loaves and fishes (because that would be “magic”), but that everyone just learned to share and then realized there was enough for everyone. For Francis to say that, he can only be accusing the Gospel writers of lying…because the Gospels make it very clear that Christ literally multiplied the loaves and fishes. Francis is also saying Holy Mother Church taught falsely regarding this “parable” (his word) of the loaves and fishes…for 2 millennia.

    What name do you give his heresy that for a Catholic to convince someone else to convert to Catholicism is a “grave sin”?

  205. Boxer says:

    Jeff Strand:

    So, why not just convert to Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Mormonism or Islam, and forget about the pope? The way you pour so much energy into condemning him suggests some sort of unhealthy obsession.

    It’d be like me spending a full week condemning the president of the LDS church. I don’t do this because I don’t care enough. I’ll always be a Mormon, but I knew from an early age that the folk religion of my people wasn’t all that agreeable to me. The solution? Go find something you like better, or just study your religious texts on your own, or in a small group with trusted friends.

    Best,

    Boxer

  206. Boxer says:

    Personally, I can find a number of things I like about Pope Francis. His ability to troll weird trannies into meltdowns being someplace close to the top of my list…

    https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-gender-theory-problem-not-solution

  207. Opus says:

    On the subject of Pope Francis: for obvious reasons we don’t like Argies and being of Italian parentage hardly assists.

  208. earl says:

    @Jeff….

    The novus ordo watch site only takes parts of his statements instead of the full context, hence why they are misleading. On the hell statement…another person was concerned about it but also tied it to the previous paragraph to get the full context.

    https://romalocutaest.com/2017/03/07/does-amoris-laetitia-297-deny-hell/

    This is why cross examination is important.

  209. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    We will not convince each other, and this is getting pointless. You will find a way to try to explain away Bergoglio’s heretical statements that there is no Hell, as you do above. You conveniently forget that he added more context to this when he said that there is no reason to fear the Judgment, and suggested that while almost everybody goes to Heaven (all the saints taught the opposite, that the vast majority will be lost), the few souls who are unfit for Heaven will not go to Hell…instead, they will just be annhilated and will cease to exist. But of course, you will find some weaselly way to explain this all away.

    You will do the same with his clear statements that those living in open fornication “have all the graces of marriage”, that the holy writers of the Gospels lied about the miracle (or “parable”, as Bergoglio calls it) of the Loaves and Fishes, that it is a “grave sin against ecumenism” to convert someone to the Catholic Faith, that “when it comes to Justification, Luther did not err”, that Jews go straight to Heaven because they are Jews (while rejecting Our Lord and His Church, and eschewing baptism), that other religions are positively willed by God and are meant to serve “as a means of salvation”, that in Confession we accuse Christ of our sins (“we say to Jesus, this is your sin, and I will sin again!”), etc.

    Like I said earlier, if tomorrow the Argentine Apostate starts teaching that there are 8 Gods, you will find a way to explain it away and still claim he’s the valid pope.

    Others will be more open to the truth. Bergoglio’s “papacy” will go down in history as the complete triumph of sedevacantism. The terrible words of Our Blessed Mother to the children of La Sallette are fulfilled right before our very eyes: “Rome will lose the Faith, and become the seat of Antichrist.”

    So you and I had best just agree to disagree. You go ahead and follow your “Pope” Francis, good luck with that!

    P.S. If this maniac’s “pontificate” lasts even just a few years longer, you will probably see a schism even in Novo Ordus land.

  210. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer: “So, why not just convert to Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Mormonism or Islam, and forget about the pope? The way you pour so much energy into condemning him suggests some sort of unhealthy obsession.”

    Because unlike Mormonism, the Catholic Faith is the True Religion, founded by God Himself (on St. Peter, the Rock, as described in the Gospels) for the salvation of men and the glory of Himself. The evindence for this is overwhelming.

    (Though I understand and respect why some choose Eastern Othodoxy, and some of those churches have retained holy orders. Thus they have valid priests and valid sacraments, esp the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. The fact they are in schism from Rome no longer seems so grievous, when “Rome has lost the faith and become the Seat of Antichrist”. Protestantism, OTOH, is no solution at all – any more than Arianism, Donatism, Albigensianism, Manichaeism, Monophysitism, etc. We must never abandon the Faith given to us by Our Lord in order to invent a new religion, no matter how circumstances turn out…and how can we deny people the graces of the Sacrements, esp Confession and the sacred Body and Blood?)

    But since Vatican II, what claims to be the RCC has gone into apostasy. The real RCC survives underground now, as in the days of the Caesars. If you study all the teachings of the Church, papal bulls, encyclicals, etc that came out BEFORE Vatican II (which I definitely invite you to do), you will find they are all completely logical, in accordance with Reason, and never contradict each other.

    Don’t waste your time with the garbage put out by the post-Council “popes”.

    P.S. This wasn’t by accident. Google up Bella Dodd. She was a big shot in the American Communist Party of the 1930’s. She later had a change of heart, and repudiated all that. In the 50’s, she testified before Congress about how the Commies were trying to infiltrate the RCC, which they viewed as their implacable enemy. She testified that in the 30’s, she herself oversaw the placing of “dozens” of sleeper cell, secret Communinsts into Catholic seminaries. She said these men were now, twenty years later, reaching positions of power and influence, and that in the years to come “you will not recognize the Catholic Church”. We can assume similar things were done at the same time in European countries.

    The next decade brought Vatican II, and the great apostasy.

  211. Boxer says:

    Because unlike Mormonism, the Catholic Faith is the True Religion, founded by God Himself (on St. Peter, the Rock, as described in the Gospels) for the salvation of men and the glory of Himself. The evindence for this is overwhelming.

    Doesn’t this statement contradict the wall of text you’ve been posting, for days (and days), about how the Catholic Faith is led by a heretic who is satan-inspired and a communist asshole? Which is it? Is the Catholic Faith the one true way, or is it the way to Hell? I can’t keep track.

    You’d fit in perfectly with the LDS’ers, by the way. I was always taught in childhood that the pope made a deal with the devil to lead humanity into hell (silly nonsense), that Catholicism was polytheism (sorta true, but irrelevant), and that every priest was my deadly enemy. Eventually I grew up and went to a jesuit school, and hung out with a bunch of priests. I found they were just guys like me, who liked to shoot baskets, while trying in vain to teach me latin, and otherwise doing their best to teach me to think.

    Best,

    Boxer

  212. two crows says:

    @gunnerq

    Thanks. It may not be published yet. All I see is a placeholder website.

    I sent you my email through your website contact page. So we don’t derail this comment thread.

  213. PokeSalad says:

    Cripes. Dalrock must away somewhere or comatose to let all this off-topic digital diarrhea go on for so long. Will check in next month when perhaps some of ya’ll have burned out *chuckles*

  214. Mountain Man says:

    Thanks to this thread, I’ve discovered a new and improved way to read the comments. I’ve found that if I just skip over any post by Jeff Strand or Earl, then reading comments is much quicker and more enjoyable.

    A question for either Jeff or Earl: Why do you so consistently and reliably hijack every discussion and try to make it about Catholicism?

  215. earlthomas786 says:

    Why do you so consistently and reliably hijack every discussion and try to make it about Catholicism?

    Because that’s my identity.

    I would like to stay on topic because feminism needs to be put in the garbage bin of history. I dont know why so many have this pent up angst against the pope or the church.

  216. earlthomas786 says:

    Although I will admit I should of stopped after I got a ‘wow, just wow’ out of him.

  217. BillyS says:

    Because that’s my identity.

    Your identity doesn’t have to control you Earl. You don’t hear all my identity here. Some obviously makes it through, but you are not helpful to anyone (even your own “faith”) when you have to insert digs against others in the same forum on a regular basis. Keep in mind the task here and you will be much more effective.

  218. earlthomas786 says:

    @BillyS

    Why don’t you read way up the thread…I didn’t get into it until late. Even a few posters were getting into it with Jeff. Jeff has always been the instigator in taking away from the OP.

  219. Kevin says:

    I don’t want to interfere in the heated debate about the pope, but I thought this was interesting.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-the-retreat-from-marriage-due-to-cheap-sex-mens-waning-job-prospects-or-both

    Lots of this article is blaming men for screwing up feminism and is begging men to get married so they can experience the rich relationships afforded to them in marriage but there are some interesting points. Historically married men had more sex than non-married in study after study. No longer true. Not only are married men not having more sex – educated UMC type guys are having the least sex compared to their lower educated peers. This is classic with the AF/BB. Getting married is not a sexual reward anymore, its a sexual wasteland. The girl these UMC hard striving guys marry slept with so many guys, their beta husband just does not interest them in bed. In the single world sex is everywhere for anyone who wants it. Interesting times.

  220. earlthomas786 says:

    Lots of this article is blaming men for screwing up feminism and is begging men to get married

    Lots of ladies want their cake (BB) and eat it too (AF). Feminism only keeps going on if the majority of men worship women’s whims…be it sexual or materialistic. Doesn’t work. Sex, marriage, and procreation all go together…trying to divorce all of that will lead to things like MGTOW, PUAs, women initatied divorces, dog ‘moms’, and sex roles getting muddied and confused.

  221. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer: “Doesn’t this statement contradict the wall of text you’ve been posting, for days (and days), about how the Catholic Faith is led by a heretic who is satan-inspired and a communist asshole? Which is it? Is the Catholic Faith the one true way, or is it the way to Hell? I can’t keep track.”

    My apologies, I thought I had been clear.

    It’s precisely BECAUSE the Catholic Faith is the True Religion that we know the heretical Bergoglio cannot be the pope, and the religious organization he heads (that I call the “Vatican II Sect”) is not the same RCC that was led by all the popes from St. Peter through Pius XII.

    If Earl is right that Bergoglio is pope, and Bergoglio’s church is the same RCC of Pius XII and his predecessors, then the “gates of hell have prevailed” against the Church founded by Our Lord upon St. Peter. But we know that cannot be, as Our Lord (who can neither deceive nor be deceived) explicitly promised that this would never happen. And obviously, if Our Lord was wrong or mistaken about that, than He cannot be divine. And the whole basis for Christianity fails and we should become deists.

    So when I bash Bergoglio, I am NOT bashing a valid pope of the RCC, nor the actual RCC itself. The RCC is indeed the True Religion, and it has gone underground. I am bashing an Antipope, and I am bashing his counterfeit church, The Vatican II Sect, which is the “ape of the RCC”, exactly what Bishop Fulton Sheen predicted would happen a couple decades before the catastrophe of the Council. Bishop Sheen predicted, “Satan will set up a counter-church, which will be the ape of the Catholic Church”. Just as at La Sallette, the Blessed Mother told the children that “Rome will lose the Faith, and become the seat of antichrist.” (This was a Church-approved apparition)

    Hmmm. So both Bishop Sheen and the Mother of God herself predicted that the false church that would imitate and counterfeit the true RCC would be SATANIC in it’s origin.

    Read that again, Earl. “Those with ears to hear, let him hear.”

    P.S. The mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, whose visions were the basis for Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, also predicted this. In her visions, she saw that what people BELIEVED TO BE the RCC would lose the Faith, while the ACTUAL RCC would go underground. Her actual quote was that “the Church shall go into eclipse”. Think about that. What happens with an eclipse? You enter a period of darkness, where things are hidden. She was saying that the True RCC would be hidden from most of the world, and that has indeed happened.

    Ironically, the great St. Francis also made a prophecy of the “destroyer pope” to come (Google it), and Bergoglio fits this description to a tee.

    P.P.S. Another thing. Ever notice how popular “Pope” Francis is with the powerful, the celebrities, etc? He’s a freaking rock star! They even made him Time’s Man of the Year. Bill Maher mentioned what a fan he is (and added that he thinks Bergoglio is secretly an atheist…here, I can actually agree with Maher). Now I ask you, as depraved as this modern world is…shouldn’t the true, valid pope be EXTREMELY unpopular with the world? Wouldn’t you expect the world to curse him and call for his blood, if he wastruly promoting the Gospel message? But they love him. Esp when he says things like (when it comes to gays) “Who am I to judge?” Yes, he really said that – Google it yourself.

  222. Boxer says:

    A question for either Jeff or Earl: Why do you so consistently and reliably hijack every discussion and try to make it about Catholicism?

    I’m neither Jeff nor Earl. Anyway: We all come from different backgrounds. When I have a serious question about Catholicism, I look to Earl as a more reliable authority than, say, the feminists on Catholic Answers forum. He cites his sources and tends to give reasoned accounts for the way of things in that sphere. I appreciate him.

    Of course, not only do we come from different backgrounds, but we’re all here for different things. If you don’t find Earl (or anyone else, myself included) interesting, just pass ’em by.

    Best,

    Boxer

  223. earlthomas786 says:

    FWIW…I wouldn’t take anything feminists say with any authority.

    I think most guys here are in full agreement of their contempt for the feminist ethos eroding everything we hold sacred.

  224. Jeff Strand says:

    Mountain Man: “A question for either Jeff or Earl: Why do you so consistently and reliably hijack every discussion and try to make it about Catholicism?”

    It was on topic. Because commenters were condemning the “feminist theology” of the OP, and the question arose of who has the authority to condemn their theology. Assuming they also claim it’s based on the Bible. How do Prots condemn other Prots, by what authority can they know who is right and wrong…when you have such spiritual anarchy on the Prot side of the aisle (how many denominations are there now? Tens of thousands?)

    You’re free to add your own comments on a totally different aspect of the OP. If you do, I’m not gonna complain that it’s a subject I’m not interested in. If anything, I’ll just skip over it. Because I’m an adult, you see?

  225. Pingback: The war the elite fears. | Dark Brightness

  226. OKRickety says:

    Jeff Strand,

    “… how many denominations are there now? Tens of thousands?”

    Rather than simply accepting this old wives’ tale as truth, maybe you could be an “adult” and look into it seriously. I suggest you start with “We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations” from the National Catholic Register. The author says that the likely source of this claim is the World Chris­t­ian Ency­clo­pe­dia. The NCR article author says there are about 9000 Protestant denominations, and 781 Orthodox denom­i­na­tions and 242 Catholic denominations. That’s over 1000 non-Protestant “denominations”! Perhaps the Protestants aren’t quite as awful as claimed.

    Note: The World Christian Encyclopedia defines the word “denomination” as an organized Christian group within a specific country. In other words, the Anglican Church in England, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and USA are each counted as a denomination. With that approach, I’m not certain how much credence should be given to the data.

  227. Jeff Strand says:

    OKRickety,

    You’re missing the point. Of course there are many different Orthodix churches, no one denies this. When it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, there has typically only been one…but whether the organization led by Bergoglio is that one, well you can see we’ve been having quite a debate about it.

    Getting back to Protestantism, the actual number of denoms is not as important as the principle, first established by Luther, that every single believer has the right to branch off and start their own new religion…if they feel their current church doesn’t interpret and apply the Scriptures properly. They can then establish their own, new, Christian denomination that better accords with their interpretation of the Bible. And this new denom can have new (and even unheard of before) doctrines and dogmas. They can do so even if they have little to no training in Biblical studies, ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, or the voluminous writings of the Church Fathers. Indeed, they are free to completely ignore and contradict all the writings of the Church Fathers (and they pretty much have to, since the Father’s regularly discuss the Sacrament of Confession and the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament, offered on the altar by a priest….among many other distinctively Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory)

    I don’t want to insult any of the Protestant readers on here (or our respected host) – this is never my intent. But I must confess my absolute bewilderment that anyone, esp any educated person, can adhere to any form of Prot. In my view, it’s not just that it’s false, but that it is so obviously, clearly, unquestionably a false religion…that it never ceases to amaze me that people fall into it. I find it just stunning.

    Again, no offense meant and nothing personal. Just my 2 cents, and how I see things. Hey, maybe I’m the one who’s wrong…I mean, what the heck do I know, right?

    Still, I must follow my conscience.

  228. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin
    Lots of this article is blaming men for screwing up feminism and is begging men to get married so they can experience the rich relationships afforded to them in marriage but there are some interesting points.

    It is junk. Regnarus has damaged his reputation with this shoddy work. Including “masturbating to porn” with the hookup culture in the category of “cheap sex” is dishonest. He probably had to do that in order to appease conservative feminists, because if he stuck with actual “penis in vagina intercourse” in his category of “cheap sex” it would become obvious what is really happening: a lot of women, quite possibly the majority, are extremely promiscuous in their 20’s and only willing to settle for marriage when over 30. In other words, the cock carousel is real.

    I repeat: Regnarus has done a shoddy piece of work, as usual blaming men for women’s actions.
    He’s white knighting again. It is junk.

  229. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jeff Strand.
    Again, no offense meant and nothing personal.

    Snort.

  230. earl says:

    He probably had to do that in order to appease conservative feminists, because if he stuck with actual “penis in vagina intercourse” in his category of “cheap sex” it would become obvious what is really happening: a lot of women, quite possibly the majority, are extremely promiscuous in their 20’s and only willing to settle for marriage when over 30. In other words, the cock carousel is real.

    Yes while they are all sexual sins…there’s a big difference between masturbation, porn, and fornication. Whichever one triggers the feminists the most is probably the one they are doing.

  231. earl says:

    a lot of women, quite possibly the majority, are extremely promiscuous in their 20’s and only willing to settle for marriage when over 30. In other words, the cock carousel is real.

    FWIW…I’ve been seeing this attitude with women in general more often. I don’t know if it is a tell they are promiscuous or that they don’t want to be married or both…but this attitude women are having is an issue.

  232. Scott says:

    and 781 Orthodox denom­i­na­tions

    That’s a weird claim.

    As far as I know, there is the Eastern Orthodox (this is main one that most people just call “Orthodox.” This is one communion, and its about 300-400 million Christians.

    There are Oriental Orthodox, which includes in their communion the Coptics, all the churches of the far east, the Armenians and other non-chalcedonians. On an autocephalous basis, many of these churches has limited communion with the Eastern Orthodox. Another 100 million or so Christians there.

    Then there are some “old calendarists” but even many of those are in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.

    So, that’s three–all of whom recognize each others apostolic succession, which is the important part for rank and file members.

    Anything else is so small as to be insignificant.

  233. Scott says:

    Especially since “denomination” has no meaning to the Orthodox.

  234. Scott says:

    the Sacrament of Confession and the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament, offered on the altar by a priest….among many other distinctively Catholic doctrines

    Um, no. The RC does not own these teachings and beliefs singularly.

  235. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    Why don’t you read way up the thread…I didn’t get into it until late. Even a few posters were getting into it with Jeff. Jeff has always been the instigator in taking away from the OP.

    I was just responding to your post about why you push the RCC so much. You are definitely far better than Jeff Strand, as I noted in some reply (here I think). You get your digs in, but they are more limited. I can’t recall ever saying some modern result was because of something in the RCC, at least not outside of a direct discussion of the RCC.

    Jeff,

    Getting back to Protestantism, the actual number of denoms is not as important as the principle, first established by Luther, that every single believer has the right to branch off and start their own new religion…if they feel their current church doesn’t interpret and apply the Scriptures properly.

    You have no basis to oppose the current Pope then. You have no right to determine he is wrong. Quit trying to have it both ways. You want to be in charge with your own rules. You make a poor god. Claiming some magical chain (that isn’t true) doesn’t make your claims more reliable than those who rely on the written Word of God. Humans will always make errors until we all stop “seeing through a glass darkly”, but making things up is not better, whoever does it.

  236. BillyS says:

    I would agree AR. Claiming “no offense” after insulting people is not very genuine, as if anyone couldn’t see through it.

    I guess selling indulgences was great and Luther should have just stuck with it. I think I will go with salvation by faith rather than by works, since that is what God wrote in the Scriptures.

  237. earl says:

    I think I will go with salvation by faith rather than by works, since that is what God wrote in the Scriptures.

    Brush up on James 2.

  238. Scott says:

    Even when I was in the Church of Christ and growing up learning established reform doctrines, “salvation by faith [only]” always seemed like a false dichotomy. Its also impossible for temporal humans to live this way in real life.

    Lets say someone buys me a gift. Its a complicated piece of equipment, like a stereo or other electronic device. They put the box in wrapping paper.

    They give me the gift, and in its wrapped up, still in the box status it is nothing more than a pretty box.

    I open the gift, get a knife and open the box. Strip away all the packaging, and find that I still have to read the directions to make the gift meaningful for me. There is no reason that the Christian in his diligent efforts to work out his salvation can’t think of it this way.

    It was a “free” gift. But it still has to be worked out, or activated and turned on to mean anything.

  239. Jeff Strand says:

    Scott: “Um, no. The RC does not own these teachings and beliefs singularly”

    Don’t be so hyper-sensitive. I meant “Catholic” as opposed to what the Protestant denominations believe. I thought the context made that clear.

    No one denies that many of the Orthodox churches also hold fast to such ancient, apostolic doctrines. Nor do I deny that a number of them have preserved true Holy Orders, and therefore have valid priests and the Real Presence (unlike, for example, the High Church Anglicans, whose Holy Orders are totally invalid)

    And I already said upthread that I understand and respect those who choose the Orthodox route, esp since in most cases the issue with them wasn’t heresy over doctrine (as with the Prots), but schism from the See of Peter. And that no longer seems so grievous, with an aopostate like Bergoglio pretending to be the pope, and much of the world deceived by him.

    So it seems to me I was bending over backwards on behalf of the Orthodox. For you to find a way to take offense anyway? Wow! Can anyone say, “special snowflake”?

  240. Scott says:

    Jeff-

    What exactly is your strategy here? What are you trying to accomplish?

    Have you found this technique to be effective in forwarding the cause of Christ?

    You are absolutely obtuse and unbearable. Exasperating, actually. Your fruit is that of division and strife, which makes it impossible to engage with you. Why are you here?

    The use of the word “Catholic” with a capital “C” means you were referring to the RC church. It is standard practice to use the lower case “c” when referring to the universal church, that you apparently meant.

  241. Scott says:

    I’ll add a little more, just to try to help you understand whats happening here.

    No one around here will ever fault someone who vigorously defends their particular beliefs, doctrines or practices of their faith traditions. I do it all the time with Orthodoxy.

    But I would suggest to you there is a pretty easy way to know if you are being effective. Right now everyone in this thread is trolling you and it makes you look like a fool

    That means that your long word vomit posts are going by like a bunch of blurry letters strung together in no particular order while they all all roll their eyes.

    Get a hold of yourself, and ask “what purpose is this serving?”

  242. Jeff Strand says:

    Scott,

    Wow, get over yourself dude. Are you really that full of yourself? I got to say, you are really making yourself look bad, bro.

    I already said, I’m not trying to convert anyone. Can you not read? So I could care less about your “techniques” or their “effectiveness”. I was participating in a discussion I found interesting. As did a number of others (else they would not have replied).

    Again, please get over yourself and stop trying to tell others what they are allowed to say. This just makes you come off as insufferable. Not a good look, btw.

  243. OKRickety says:

    Jeff,

    “You’re missing the point. Of course there are many different Orthodix churches, no one denies this. When it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, there has typically only been one…”

    I didn’t miss the point. If you want others to listen to your arguments, you need to avoid ridiculous claims, for example, the number of Protestant denominations being “tens of thousands”.

    As to that specific claim, I hope you would question its truth when the likely source also claims 242 Catholic denominations, compared to your claim of 1.

  244. Jeff Strand says:

    OKR,

    Yeah, I’m not going to die on that hill that there are 30,000 Prot denoms. As I said earlier, the exact number isn’t the point. It’s the principle that every believer has the right to determine his own doctrine and dogma, based on his own personal interpretation of Scripture. Even if his interpretation is unheard of, and contradicts centuries of tradition, the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. And even though the believer himself may have little to no education in classical languages, theology, biblical studies, etc.

    This was always going to lead to disaster. It started happening even in Luther’s lifetime, and he railed against it. To no avail, of course.

  245. Dale says:

    @Jeff
    Wow, get over yourself dude. Are you really that full of yourself? I got to say, you are really making yourself look bad, bro.

    As someone who disagrees with both Scott and you, and thus an “outsider” to your argument, I quite firmly think you, Jeff, are the one who is making himself look bad / disrespectable.

    @Earl
    I think I will go with salvation by faith rather than by works, since that is what God wrote in the Scriptures.

    Brush up on James 2.

    How about you take your own advice Earl? As discussed before, I am trying to remember the difficult position you are in, as you (attempt to) base your faith on both the words of men/tradition and also on the words of God. In this case, James 2 does not mean what you apparently have been taught it means. I suggest you read the words directly, for yourself, with an attempt to see what the words do and do not actually say. In particular, check out verses 22 and 26.
    “[Abraham’s] faith was made complete by what he did.” Not, “his faith came into existence by acts”, not, “his faith began after he started acting a certain way”. No, “his faith was made complete”. The faith already existed; the acts were a necessary add-on, or result, of true faith. Scott’s post at 12:32 shows a great deal of wisdom; it also gives a nice metaphor for why we need to continue to study Scripture and allow on-going correction to our thoughts/attitudes/actions (e.g. Rom 12:1-2). (Although perhaps Scott and I would disagree on the question of whether acts are a required component of faith for faith to exist at all, or whether acts are merely the direct result of genuine faith. Or he might wisely classify such as distinction as “angels on the head of a pin”, and not a reason to argue; Titus 3:9-11. 🙂 We’ll see…)

    Similarly, verse 22 shows that acts and faith are separate, as James refers to these as two separate things that work together. “You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.”

    Eph 2:8-10 is one of my favourite passages. I suggest you read it before you reply, Earl. It is about works. It says both that, “it is by grace that you are saved, through faith, not by works” and also that, “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, to do good works”. So we are made to do good works… and those works do not save us. See also Titus 3:3-8 for the same message.
    But this challenge assumes you are willing to have your faith/tradition contradicted and corrected by the word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17), and, by definition, you refuse to accept that this is even possible. As I have said, you are in a bad spot. I pray that you will escape from this trap, and the trap’s author (2 Tim 2:22-26).

    In conclusion, we are to do good works (Eph 2:8-10, James 4:17, John 14:21-24), and anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ, but has no good fruit, seems an obvious case of a liar (Matt 7:15-23). Those acts are a necessary result of genuine faith, but are not part of what saves us (Eph 2:8-10, Rom 10:1-13, Rom 3:20-31).
    Thus, I believe that a man who finally, but genuinely, on his deathbed, submits to Christ as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, will be saved. The fact that the man has little or no time before death to “do good works” is irrelevant to whether he is saved. Which is actually great news, since if we are saved by the righteousness of our works (in contradiction to Titus 3:3-8), we have an impossible standard to meet.

  246. OKRickety says:

    Scott,

    “and 781 Orthodox denom­i­na­tions”

    “That’s a weird claim.”

    From my perspective, the whole structure of the “Orthodox Church” is strange. According to Eastern Orthodox Church organization, it consists of Autocephalous Orthodox churches, Ancient Patriarchates, Junior Patriarchates, Autocephalous Archbishoprics, Autonomous Orthodox churches, and Orthodox churches with limited self-government but without autonomy. I have no idea how these compare to “denominations”, but it doesn’t really look like one Orthodox Church to me.

  247. Scott says:

    O’rickety-

    Trust me, I’ve been Orthodox for 3 years and it’s still pretty confusing to me. So your point is fair.

    I’ve been content to just be ok with the “who is in communion with whom” piece and the main the body there is pretty huge. Everything else is fringe.

    You are right though-there are not “thirty thousand” Protestant denominations.

  248. Scott says:

    Thinking about it more, I would add to that “who has valid sacraments based on valid succession and holy orders.”

    That’s about 1.5 billion Christians.

  249. earlthomas786 says:

    How about you take your own advice Earl?

    @Dale

    The point of James is that faith is proven through works…it’s not an either-or scenerio.

  250. Jeff Strand says:

    Dale: “As someone who disagrees with both Scott and you, and thus an “outsider” to your argument, I quite firmly think you, Jeff, are the one who is making himself look bad / disrespectable.”

    That’s fine, doesn’t hurt my feelings none. If you something have interesting to add, go for it.

  251. Jeff Strand says:

    OKR: “I have no idea how these compare to “denominations”, but it doesn’t really look like one Orthodox Church to me.”

    You’re right, it’s not. That’s why in my comments I took great care to say “some” Orthodox churches preserved valid Holy Orders, and that “in most cases” the issues that led to separation from Rome were not heresies over doctrine, but rather merely schism.

  252. Scott says:

    O’Rickety-

    Just to clear up some of the confusion. In that Wikipedia article, if you scroll all the way down to the heading “Churches in resistance,” everything above it is one church. The easiest way to understand this is they are all in communion with each other. The patriarchs of those churches would make up an “ecumenical council” with the authority to make binding doctrinal changes, if the need should ever arise. That hasn’t happened since 787 AD.

    All of what is listed below are analogous to the various sedavanists and such that the Catholics have. Not particularly meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

  253. Scott says:

    That one church is “The Orthodox Church.”

    They can intermarry, receive sacraments from each other, no dispensations required.

  254. Scott says:

    You may also find it interesting that Catholicism actually has something analogous to autocephaly and autonomy. Its called sui iuris. These are churches that are in communion with the RCC but have a different rite (liturgical form). Most of them are eastern, so they look exactly like Orthodox churches. In fact, several of them used to be Orthodox and then decided to accept the Pope as who he claims to be. They are allowed to keep their rite.

  255. Novaseeker says:

    Yep, and some of the “churches sui juris”, like the Melkite Greek-Catholic one, are kind of dissidents in the Catholic Church too: http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-97/33-document-library/documents-of-the-byzantine-catholic-churches/2770-the-melkite-initiative-with-the-antiochian-orthodox-church

    Disclosure: I was a Melkite Catholic (also canonical … I switched) before I was received by the Holy Orthodox Church in 2000.

  256. Scott says:

    Nova-

    Yeah, I went to a Ruthenian one for a while. There are several churches in that group that have kind of a “one more stupid comment from this pope and we are leaving!” (back to Orthodoxy) mentality.

  257. Jeff Strand says:

    I believe the famous 19th century Lebanese priest, monk, hermit, and now wonder-worker, St. Charbel, was Maronite Catholic.

  258. Jeff Strand says:

    Scott: “There are several churches in that group that have kind of a “one more stupid comment from this pope and we are leaving!” (back to Orthodoxy) mentality.”

    I don’t blame them a bit. But then, I’ve made it abundantly clear in this thread that I don’t believe we even have a valid pope at present. Or if there is one, he is hidden from us.

    Did you ever stop to think, what if Vatican II had never happened…and for the last half century we had popes of the caliber of Pius X or Leo XIII? I would bet that half the Prots and 90% of the Orthodox would have “crossed the Tiber” by now and returned to communion with the See of
    Peter. After all, didn’t the Church Fathers say “Where is Peter, there is the Church” and “Roma Locuta, Causa Finita” (Rome has spoken, the case is closed)

    What a triumph of Satan was the infiltration of the Church and the execrable, modernist Council! It’s everything poor St. Pius X dedicated his life and pontificate to preventing. It is an unspeakable tragedy, and personally, I think it is divine punishment for the sins of modern men.

  259. Isa says:

    @opus My priest at Uni was a native Brit from a longstanding Catholic family. His Benedictine order is located somewhere near Leeds and was mostly English with a few Scots. Fascinating character, spoke 4 languages, trained surgeon, and had 3 failed engagements after being drummed out of seminary the first time for impersonating the pope to protest falsified student elections. The twist there was that the pope was due to visit that week, so the faculty called a student assembly to welcome “the pope” who had unexpectedly arrived. Italians have such a poor sense of humor…

  260. Son of Liberty says:

    How many times does God have to tell the world to come out of any daughter harlot sect, especially the Mother Harlot of them all the Roman Catholic Church? In fact any religion is satanic. Reality is simple, accept God and His Son or join Satan’s sects and institutions with idolatrous imagery, blasphemous teachings and spiritually fornicating practices. Very simple brothers, it;s in the bible proven throughout history… come out of her… comeoutofher.org

    Revelation 17 – The Harlot Roman Catholic Church

  261. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    You need to read a bit more.

    Brush up on James 2.

    True faith should produce works. Works do not save, faith does and faith alone. Read the entire NT and you will get a better understanding. That was one of the reasons I did leave the RCC myself however. It is faith + nothing, not faith + my own efforts.

    Scott,

    You own the knife whether you know how to use it properly or not. (Though who needs instructions to use most of the features of a knife?)

    A key question is exactly what happens upon being saved. Most only see it as having a column checked in a registry. I believe it is a deeper transformation (see II Cor 5:17-20 for example). Just like a baby is human when born, but needs to learn and grow, so a Christian is that upon new birth, but should transform. Though even a lack of growth doesn’t change the inner status change, just as a baby that fails to grow remains human, whatever happens. A bit deeper than this thread though and another tangent not worth diving into this late.

    Jeff,

    Don’t be so hyper-sensitive. I meant “Catholic” as opposed to what the Protestant denominations believe. I thought the context made that clear.

    I am not sure your whole point here, but that is why I use RCC rather than just “catholic”. The latter just means “universal” and I would include any Christian with a saving faith in that bin.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s