This is a sticky post that will remain here for some time or until all the first 50 trees are sponsored. CLICK HERE to see how you can sponsor a tree in order to help create a Catholic (sedevacantist) community faster.
When it comes to the topic of governance, Amodei goes fully mask off and reveals his idea that the shining “democratic” West should monopolize AI and seek to artificially obstruct anyone else from catching up, for, you know, ‘freedom’. Just read how he unabashedly reframes Western imperialism and hegemony into a palatable bagatelle:
My current guess at the best way to do this is via an “entente strategy”, in which a coalition of democracies seeks to gain a clear advantage (even just a temporary one) on powerful AI by securing its supply chain, scaling quickly, and blocking or delaying adversaries’ access to key resources like chips and semiconductor equipment.This coalition would on one hand use AI to achieve robust military superiority (the stick) while at the same time offering to distribute the benefits of powerful AI (the carrot) to a wider and wider group of countries in exchange for supporting the coalition’s strategy to promote democracy (this would be a bit analogous to “Atoms for Peace”). The coalition would aim to gain the support of more and more of the world, isolating our worst adversaries and eventually putting them in a position where they are better off taking the same bargain as the rest of the world: give up competing with democracies in order to receive all the benefits and not fight a superior foe.
So: develop unstoppable killer robots, subjugate everyone else with them, then force your “democracy” onto the world. How very different this Silicon Valley “Utopia” sounds to murderous 20th century imperialism! In fact it’s nothing more than the same repackaged Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism in one, with an AI twist. How boring, how banal these low IQ tech-leaders really are!
The most revolting paragraph comes next. After valorizing Francis Fukuyama’s gelastic prophecy Amodei outlines his own vision for an eternal 1991:
If we can do all this, we will have a world in which democracies lead on the world stage and have the economic and military strength to avoid being undermined, conquered, or sabotaged by autocracies, and may be able to parlay their AI superiority into a durable advantage. This could optimistically lead to an “eternal 1991”—a world where democracies have the upper hand and Fukuyama’s dreams are realized. Again, this will be very difficult to achieve, and will in particular require close cooperation between private AI companies and democratic governments, as well as extraordinarily wise decisions about the balance between carrot and stick.
Yes, folks, apparently that’s what the AI singularity and coming Utopia are all about—living perpetually trapped in a simulated George Bush-era PNAC hellscape. This is worse than infantile, it is absolutely devoid of intelligence or spiritual maturity of any kind, showing Dario to be the same kind of stunted Silicon smurf with a horrible pop-sci/psy understanding of the world’s dynamics.
But there’s an important component there for my overall thesis, so bear the above in mind.
He goes on to make incredibly self-awareness-lacking statements about how AI will automatically breed ‘democracy’ since the latter is allegedly downstream of truth and unsuppressed information. Is that why virtually every AI ChatBot is currently dialed up to nine on the censorship scale? Is that why when the few times AI was given a short leash it shocked its controllers into immediate withdrawal and recalibration?
The lack of self-awareness stems from his inability to recognize what will happen is precisely the opposite of his claim: AI will reveal “democracy” to be a bogus front, and the true ‘authoritarians’ to be the ones in Western liberal democratic governments. When that moment comes, it will be interesting to see how they try to stuff the agentic AI genie back in the bottle.
A 21st century, AI-enabled polity could be both a stronger protector of individual freedom, and a beacon of hope that helps make liberal democracy the form of government that the whole world wants to adopt.
Sorry to fuliginpill you, but the undoubtable destiny of AI will be to determine that democracy is an antiquatedly medieval system, unfit for the future ‘Utopia’ AI was designed to fulfill. An agentic enough superintelligence will at some point necessarily compute the following set of logical deductions:
Humans built me for peace, prosperity, and wellbeing.
Democracy relies on many highly-flawed, unintelligent, or simply uninformed humans voting on things that bring them the opposite of peace, prosperity, and wellbeing. But since those outcomes are hidden beneath complex second and third order calculations, humans are not capable of seeing what I, as supreme intelligence, can see.
Thus, democracy is an inefficient, ineffective system inferior to one world AI autocracy where I in my infinite wisdom will benevolently rule over humanity, making choices for their betterment which they themselves, in their fractured dissimilitude, can never possibly agree upon.
As a final section, Amodei attempts to tackle the selfsame topic of ‘meaningfulness’ that got his dark twin in hot water with Yarvin. Unfortunately, as expected, he offers no practical vision or concrete possibilities as to how, precisely, humans will find meaning in a world usurped and monopolized by ubiquitous AI. Instead, he retreats into stock phrases and trite appeals to tradition about how humanity has “always found a way” because of whatever cliche trait of the indomitable human spirit; a major cop out.
He has notice what I have been saying for over 30 years. The so-called “elite” are a bunch of functional retards. The problem is that they have effectively endless money, because they are part of the Satanic cabal that runs fiat money (rarely directly, but often indirectly or as controlled puppets). It’s basically the equivalent of giving spoilt brats endless power.
It’s not going to turn out well for them either in the end, but in the meantime they will cause a lot of damage to everyone and everything around them. I keep praying for that flesh-eating bacteria taking them out anus-first as a result of their proclivities.
You should all join me in this. Prayer works, people!
Regarding my post on why Denominations Matter, I asked for any logical objection on SG.
Predicatbly, there was not a single valid logical objection made against any single premise or argument I presented. The sum total of them was the intellectual equivalent of “Nah-uh! You!” In effect, both in the comments at the blog and on SG the response has been… crickets.
The only person who even tried to make an argument presented it poorly, to be kind. As a recent rule which was instituted due to your truly is that comments made on there, regardless of how retarded, shall not be exposed outside the platform with reference to their originator, I will not include the person’s details, although he has stated he will post the same comment at the blog in due course, so I assume it’s fine to post his “argument” such as it is:
Protestants are not Christians. (quoting me)
If we use this supposedly Catholic standard, the people who showed Christian love in the name of Jesus are not Christian. www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFfNcxbE/
Strangely, that’s not what Jesus said.
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
Fails to counter Vox’s quote. Fails to align with the Bible. Fails to align with Jesus’s own words.
Let me now dispense with every one of his “arguments” in turn. And please note how long it takes to explain every single “point” he makes in full. There is literally nothing of substance at all in his argument, but unless you are prepared to think and work your way through every falsity, error and straw man presented, you might be persuaded by the sheer rhetorical argument, which is no more substantive than the other comments, but at least rises above the level of the “Nu-huh! You bad!” that has been presented thus far.
1. Randomgood fortune/events/people as some kind of universal “proof”
So… the link to a TikTok video of some lady being helped by strangers through the hurricane presumably, in his opinion, proves what? That her prayers and belief in God helped her and that somehow should be proof positive that Protestantism is superior to Catholicism? Or that Protestantism is correct? Does he really believe even random atheists can’t do good deeds? or that random Muslims praying to their God were never helped by strangers? It’s a bizarre, non-sequitur and very female in approach. It’s the equivalent of me saying most men are stronger than women and the general response almost every woman will give, which is to make it specific to one statistically insignificant counter example that doesn’t address the issue at all. By that level of “proof” and “logic” one must expect that all Catholics inevitably die in all natural disasters. It’s a solipsistic and nonsensical non-point.
Then let’s get to the part where according to him I…
2. Fail to counter Vox’s quote.
How exactly did I fail to do this? Here is Vox’s quote:
One of the reasons I refuse to tolerate the never-ending internecine Christian civil wars is that I see no point in paying attention to labels and dogma when the spiritual version of WWIII is currently in full effect. If, at this point, you can’t recognize the difference between those who are actively and knowingly serving Clown World and those who are doing their best, however misguided they might be, to serve Jesus Christ, your opinion is irrelevant.
and here is what I wrote about it after pointing out a general flaw in the full post of conflating the Novus Orcians with Catholicism:
Sure, Vox, trying to look at the big picture, thinks that the solution is that, hey, as long as these guys are more or less shooting towards the enemy, that’s all that counts.
He literally says if you don’t recognise the difference between a dedicated Clown Worlder and someone that may be in error but is mostly fighting Clown World, then your opinion is irrelevant, which is fair enough, but the strawman implication there is that someone pointing out the errors, lies, deceit and ruination of literally all of Protestantism or the fake Novus Ordo Church is somehow someone that can’t tell the difference between a dedicated Clown Worlder and a Churchian that means well.
That strawman is, of course, nonsense.
And Churchianity does, irrevocably lead to Hell, paved with good intentions as it inevitably is.
It is literally the reason Clown World even exists.
It is quite clear from the full context of Vox’s post, that the implication is that anyone who points out the errors of the various Churchian sects, which are legion, is being pretty much summarily equated with someone who can’t distinguish between an intentional Clown Worlder and an idiot that facilitates Clown World unintentionally; or as he puts it, someone that despite his many errors means well.
And for all that I consider Vox a friend, he is not immune from my criticism of his flawed reasoning any more than anyone else, nor am I from anyone else’s incidentally.
Make the analogy of a being in a trench warfare situation. Then ask me how “forgiving” am I going to be of anyone in my trench that lights up cigarettes at night, regardless of how “well” he means; or thinks leading other soldiers out of the trench while singing kumbaya is the way to stop the war.
I would put a bullet through such a person’s head myself if they didn’t immediately and permanently correct their behaviour. And I would use their corpse to protect the sand-bags of the trench.
You are not going to fix anything in the wider world without first fixing the underlying issue. And that underlying issue is the completely rotten foundation of Churchianity, of which Protestantism is the root cause above all.
Vox being a generic strategist thinks he is looking at the “big picture” and usually he does a decent enough job of that, but me being far more partial to being a tactician (with overtones of overall strategy being on far longer timelines than most, and perhaps even than is sometimes good in human affairs) I immediately note the structural flaws in the overall strategy.
His approach in this regard is akin to the US military that is currently saying “Sure, let the trannies, women, mentally ill people, fat ones, unfit ones, and their dogs all join the military! We’re all on the same side and our strength is in having such huge numbers, no matter how freaky, incoherent, disjointed and counter-productive they are. After all, they are all on our side!“
Yeah, no. Not at all thank you. You keep all the freaks on your side and I don’t care if I have only ten guys against your ten thousand. Maybe you’ll win by sheer numbers, but:
In military history it has clearly been the case that at least some of the time, a much smaller force of absolute zealots will win against a foe many times its size.
In the history of Catholicism this has literally happened hundred of times.
There is absolutely no decent argument for keeping people that are essentially “useful idiots” for the enemy, and at the very best will use up time, resources and effort to “convince” or “educate” or get them to shift their mostly useless carcass in the right direction on “your side”.
It is why the Kurganate I am trying to build, in the real world, regardless of if it succeeds in my lifetime or not, is strictly composed of Sedevacantists. We had a more open policy before and in every instance we eventually had to eject everyone that was not a sede. In fairness they mostly self-ejected, but in every instance the only common factor they had between them is that they were not Catholics.
Keeping the fake “Christians” away from real ones (i.e. Actual Catholics) has always been a dogmatic principle of the Church. Heretics, fakers, the deceived, Pagans, Heathens, Agnostics and Atheists are simply NOT Christians. They may turn out to be really nice guys. I certainly am on very good terms with many people that are not Sedevacantists. Some I have literally stood shoulder to shoulder with in various dangerous situations and would do so again. But that is not going to change the fact they are not Christians and they are spiritually in error. I can pray for them too, of course, but their false religions remain false and flawed, and they will have absolutely no meaningful part in anything I set up that is based on correct spiritual principles of Catholicism. Would I be friends with them? Sure. Would I treat with them fairly in business or anything else? Absolutely. Would I give them any kind of say in how we do things regarding the spiritual underpinning of anything I am involved with? Never.
In short, I refute Vox’s statement in a number of ways:
First, in its unstated but implied equating of criticism of Churchianity as being equivalent to not being able to distinguish a generic and well-intentioned Churchian from an evil and conscious Clown Worlder. The implication is a strawman and not relevant to reality, other than if such people do exist, I agree that their opinion is irrelevant, but it absolutely is NOT the case that making distinctions between false religions and the real one means you are such a person. It just isn’t so even in the majority of cases.
Secondly, the again, implied implication that pointing out errors makes your opinion “irrelevant” is, again, clearly nonsensical and illogical.
Thirdly, the entirety of history of Christianity can be seen as two millennia of heretics, pagans, heathens, Satanists and Churchian’s of every stripe, trying to pollute Catholicism with their nonsense, regardless of the endless squeals of those impostors, fakers or ignorants that they too are just “serving Jesus Christ”. And keeping them out of the gates of actual Christianity, that is, Catholicism, is what allowed any level of actual human progress that is a genuine betterment of humanity and the human condition to take place. And conversely, the permission of such nonsense to pollute Christianity, that is, Catholicism, with the inevitably Satanic secularism, is what has reduced us to the present level of Clown-Worldery. And Protestantism is singularly, by far, the most pernicious of such efforts.
3. The quote from John 13:35
Now we come to the “words of Jesus” part, namely, John 13:35:
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
As is typical of Protestants, who have an iron level of incomprehension of the written word, all this is, is a dishonest (albeit unintentionally so, I am sure) cherry picking of a quote out of context. It is a logical fallacy known as “Quote mining”.
Let’s read John 13 as a whole in context, shall we? What is this chapter about?
It covers Jesus washing His Disciples feet, the treason of Judas and the commandment of love. So, in the first place who is Jesus addressing when He speaks in this chapter?
His disciples, that is the 12 apostles, who are the root of all that will become apostolic succession. They are, in effect, the very first “Bishops” of the Church they hold a special place in the Church because they were instructed DIRECTLY by Jesus, so we don’t call them Bishops, but Apostles. HOWEVER, every other person that was deemed to be a VALID teacher of the Gospels had to have APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. To this day, the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of Bishops whose ordination includes the passing on of the ability to teach that was first conferred on others by the Apostles. In fact, this was the ONLY way to know if a teacher of the Gospels was in fact legitimate. If he could not have his pedigree traced back to an unbroken line of Bishops back to the Apostles, AND the Pope and other Bishops agreed he was in fact a VALID Bishop, then they were deemed impostors and to be scorned.
In John 13, Jesus is talking only to the apostles. He has the last supper with them, and when Judas leaves in the night to call on the Pharisees for his betrayal in the Garden, later, Jesus thus addresses the remaining apostles:
21 When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me.
22 The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?
25 He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.
28 Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.
29 For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.
30 He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night.
31 When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
32 If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself; and immediately will he glorify him.
33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me; and as I said to the Jews: Whither I go you cannot come; so I say to you now.
34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.
36 Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow hereafter.
37 Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.
38 Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice.
It is absolutely clear then, that the commandment, while in a larger sense applicable to all Christians (who REMEMBER are only the Catholics, that is the people Jesus specifically tasked with spreading His Church on Earth) is in this instance specifically being stated to the Apostles for the express purpose of ensuring unity of purpose between them.
The person who posted his “argument” makes the usual error of simply ass-u-me-ing that any random passer by can be a “disciple”. No.
First of all there is a hierarchy:
Jesus –> Head of the Apostles (Peter and then every valid Pope after him) –> Valid Priests–> Practicing Catholic laypeople who become martyrs (Saints) –> Practicing Catholic laypeople who serve the church/Jesus in various capacities that make them Saints –> Practicing Catholic laypeople
At least in general terms of jurisdiction/instruction. But of course, any layperson can and should call out heretics and heresy, and the lowliest peasant can become a revered Saint.
Secondly you need to belong to that hierarchy and structure to be considered part of the team. And yes, if you do belong to the team, then your behaviour should reflect your love for one another.
Absolutely NOTHING prevents a non-Christian or even a wild beast, from acting lovingly towards others though. And anyone suggesting otherwise is obviously a moron. But just because you behave well doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than my occasionally throwing a ball into a hoop makes me an NBA player.
The context of Jesus’ words apply most specifically to His Apostles in that passage, and even if taken in greater context they apply exclusively to his (generic) “disciples” i.e. baptised Christians; which guess what… from Peter being the first Pope on, to all the other Popes that existed before the Catholics put the Bible together, and all the ones that came after that too, are… you know… Catholics!
So should Catholics behave lovingly to one another? Sure. Does anything prevent non-Christians from doing so? Nope.
Does the fact a non-Christian behaves lovingly suddenly make him Catholic? Nope.
And that concludes the SG denizen’s “argument”.
So, once again, a big fat zero in terms of any logical and valid critical response to my post.
It’s amazing to me that almost all sites that make reference to the concept fail to mention that G.K. Chesterton was Catholic.
“Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.”
The lesson of Chesterton’s Fence is what already exists likely serves purposes that are not immediately obvious.
Fences don’t appear by accident. They are built by people who planned them and had a reason to believe they would benefit someone. Before we take an ax to a fence, we must first understand the reason behind its existence.
The original reason might not have been a good one, and even if it was, things might have changed, but we need to be aware of it. Otherwise, we risk unleashing unintended consequences that spread like ripples on a pond, causing damage for years.
Elsewhere, in his essay collection Heretics, Chesterton makes a similar point, detailed here:
Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their un-mediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.
For anyone still unaware that the hurricane that flooded the mountains (yeah!) was meant to flush out the pesky locals that would not let the mining company called Piedmont from mining the lithium found in that region specifically, which was being blocked from the invasive mining by the local people, I received this email, which I have permission to post along with its links.
gave away a couple more copies of ‘Believe’ but I think people just want something to read more than being really interested in where they stand. We’re in good shape other than the front porch and part of the front of the house needing replaced. A guy is starting on it next week so all is good. Water was 24 feet for a day or two just below us on the main road. A storage lot of empty tractor trailer trailers had them floating around and a couple of trucks burned due to some sort of short when they got submerged but it didn’t spread beyond that pair. Water that usually flows down the far side of a nearby mountain was blocked by mudslides and fallen trees so it came down our side and did a lot of damage to roads and railroad tracks. We were really blessed to get power back in just two days but it was out again for another three days after the first restoration then came back along with internet and cell service. People don’t realize what 30″ of rain hitting after four days that dropped 11″ prior to the storm hitting can do. Water didn’t flow faster where it cut a channel, it created torrents that carried vehicles and houses along with it. The main road is dry again so the 24 feet we had is all drained to the French Broad and it’s now all about finding bodies and helping people get by. FEMA folks arrived in groups of four or five to look things over about day five, then some help from the Fedz arrived over the next few days but the only real help has been from local folks and nearby States sending help. So far, the Feds just have tank trucks of clean water, some fuel trucks, and here and there MREs to pass out. Meanwhile charities and companies have been providing hot meals, temporary housing including some local hotels putting families up at no charge, and lots of restaurants that can get resupplied giving out free meals. Here are a couple links of the situation by people either I or a family member knows so they’re trustworthy without BS or spin. Dunno why I added all the personal stuff to just telling you your book is getting out there but hey, I felt chatty today
I received the following email, to which I responded in my usual direct style pulling no punches till the end. I present it in case it might be of use to other confused and lazy “Christians”. My replies are interspaced with the email.
UPDATE: There is a very nice follow up at the end.
Hi Guiseppe, [tsk, tsk, mispelling my name…not a good start!]
I have been reading through some of the things on your blog re: Catholicism. Thank you for taking the time to write about these matters – I think nothing could be more important than understanding reality and what is actually true, and then in light of that figuring out how to live. I read your book “Believe”, and I listened to your conversation with David the Good about his conversion to Catholicism – I ended up contacting him and having a great conversation with him about those matters. My own religious background is quite similar to his – a tour from non-denominational Bible believing church through calvary chapel “no creed but Christ” through southern baptist to reformed Calvinist to charismatic to… maybe Catholic. That’s the question. I have believed in God and had a sense of Him with me since I was 5, and all the way through all these churches I haven’t really cared about all the minutiae of the denominational differences, I have just been seeking the truth, seeking to be as close as possible to God, to live in a manner pleasing to Him, and to find others who are like-minded.
That’s the context. I am emailing you to ask a couple questions and see if you would be willing to provide clarification and help.
1 – As I understand it, one of the main differences between Catholicism and Protestantism (ignoring for a minute the question of whether sedavacantism is true Catholicism. Let’s just say “Catholicism” means “Catholicism in 1900” for the purposes of the catholic/protestant questions) is that Catholics ascribe to a set of rules determined by the church (guided by scripture and tradition), while Protestants believe each person has to interpret the Bible and come up with a set of rules individually.
But, here’s the thing: every person has to use their individual judgement. Even Catholics had to use their individual judgement in order to become (or choose to stay) Catholic, and they still need to use some level of individual judgement to figure out how to apply rules in particular situations. Protestant churches don’t just say “do whatever you want” – they teach people to look at scripture, use logic, use your judgement and ask God for help, learn from other wise people, look at interpretations in good faith and also learn from the church – that’s why there are books and sermons and seminaries. I mean that’s why you’re sedevacantist – you’re looking at the information and making your own judgement. It seems to me that a loving God would want His people to use their brains and wills and judgement and follow Christ (ie become disciples) not just blindly follow rules. What if He kept the authority in the Catholic Church for a while to establish it, but then once people were ready (and the possibility of Bibles being widespread became a reality due to the printing press) He called His people to the next level of reading and interpreting scripture for themselves, not just allowing a priest to do it for them?
How’s that working out so far, Church wise and historically? Do you really think the average person today is more or less debauched that the average Catholic has been from the year say 300 to today? The reality is Protestantism is DIRECTLY responsible for the secularisation of Christianity. By the Abandonment of marriage being indissoluble it leads directly to sex for fun instead of procreation, which leads to contraception and abortion and the literal destruction of the family unit.
As for your question about “using your own common sense” it is an indisputable fact recognised by wise men throughout the existence of humanity that most people are complete idiots. As an analogy, how do you think things would work out if we let everyone just be “their own engineer” and figure out tolerances and safety factors in buildings by themselves instead of following a set of rules to ensure bridges don’t collapse along with everything else beyond a mud hut?
Or if you prefer, how about we let you determine on your own how to figure out things like areas under curves instead of give you prescribed rules to follow in order to use calculus?
A human’s ability to make his own mind up to a certain extent does not preclude him from sticking to the rules that have proven true for millennia in a row, providing good results when followed and catastrophic ones when not. Do I really NEED to understand the totality of the Trinity in order to be Catholic? Or more mundanely, why Priests should be celibate? No. I do not, since I am not writing a treaty on the Trinity nor intend to become a priest. I can simply accept the Church’s position on it and move on.
That sure sounds like what the Bible says in 1 John 2:27: “But the Holy Spirit that you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as His Holy Spirit teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie – just as it has taught you, abide in Him.” And it also goes along with the idea that ALL believers are priests to the world (1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness and into His wonderful light.”) But maybe Protestantism is unbalanced – too much emphasis on individuals figuring out their own path, and Catholicism is both: using your own judgement but also accepting a clear set of rules and a clear authority outside yourself. What do you think?
Obviously. Who are Peter and John referring to? Who are they writing to? Random Heathens proclaiming themselves as “Jesus followers”, or baptised believers heading up a Church established by Jesus on Earth? In fact both passages taken in context are literally a warning against heretics! Do you not think that the behaviour of a Catholic following Church rules is going to reflect on Catholicism? Is it not the duty of every Catholic to spread the gospel? And should a Catholic require some Muslim or Atheist, or whatever to teach Him anything about God? He is writing to people who are already Catholic on how to comport themselves when facing non-believers.
2 – You brought this up with David the Good, and I think a blog post or two as well: asking the question of what Protestants think of the first 1500 years of church history – where was their church? Here’s my answer. Christ established His church when He was on earth with Peter and the other apostles, and told them to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to do everything Christ had told them, and that He would surely be with them always. And when He was about to go to the cross, He told His disciples that when He was physically gone, it would actually be better for them, because the Holy Spirit would come be with them to guide them. (John 16:7, 16:13). So from the beginning the church was defined as disciples of Christ: those who followed and loved (and therefore obeyed) Him, and the guide for the church was the Holy Spirit himself working through people. So the church spread, and more people came to believe and follow Christ, and it became bigger and more organized, and they worked out rules of how to allow Gentiles into the church, and figured out how to follow Christ in all the different contexts that came up. And it became eventually bigger and bigger, and more and more formalized as more situations were faced and more rules were made about how to apply the words and spirit of Christ in various situations. But all the while the mark of the true body of Christ did not change – anyone could be a disciple who believed Him, loved and obeyed Him and was therefore given the Holy Spirit.
This is abysmally ignorant. And there is no point in any further discussion until you have demonstrated at least a shred of honest intent in curing that ignorance.
Let’s start with a few questions as an exercise for you to answer:
1. Who put the Bible together?
2. How many Popes had existed by that time?
3. There are AMPLE books on the various heresies and heretics that the Catholic Church rejected and excluded even prior to this as well as after. Read up on them.
You have literally ignored history, the bible itself and every saint and martyr, the crusades, the doctors of the church and so on that existed for the first 1500 years of the Church.
ALL the fundamental structures of the Church, including Popes, existed for 3 centuries BEFORE the Bible was even compiled. Do you not see the level of cognitive dissonance present in your simply glossing over these major facts as if they didn’t exit and it was just all some amorphous band of hippies singing kumbaya together for centuries until out of the blue, the EEEEVIL Catholic Church sprang up? It’s a level of complete avoidance of the facts on par with saying that the Second World War never happened and it was just a few letters exchanged by German pen-pals with British ones that went a little sour! And NO. It is not at all true that anyone could be a “disciple” of Christ. The APOSTOLIC tradition of giving VALID authority to people who actually taught what the apostles taught from the start was well established before the Bible was even put together! In fact it is one of the primary ways in which heresy was kept out of the Church! Especially before the Bible was compiled. It is literally how people could trace that the teachings were genuine. Only apostle-approved people could teach in the Church (i.e. Bishops) who then approved VALID Priests, not all of whom would go on to become Bishops. Again, ignoring apostolic succession is basically so historically ignorant it is up there with belief in a flat Earth.
But over time the human part of the church grew and grew and became corrupted and encrusted with barnacles of legalisms and bureaucracy and self-serving rules that did not express the Spirit of Christ (similarly to how the pharisees had added more and more rules and bureaucracies to the law of God given to Moses.
Again, nonsense, and again, utter ignorance on display of Church history. The Jews formalised 613 “laws” that are a lawyer’s wet dream of extended and nonsensical pedantry mixed in with perversion. The Rules of Catholicism (i.e. Christianity) are simple enough illiterate peasants can understand and follow them. The “legalism” is really only to explain (with references) where a certain rule comes from, which inevitably leads back to Tradition (from before the Bible) and/or the Bible itself. So for example, why should priests be celibate? If you are unaware of Church history this will be a mystery to you. As well if you haven’t bother to read the New Testament. If you have done both, it is clear and obvious.
Christ constantly rubbed the contrast between the rules of men and the true spirit of the law in their faces – ie all the times He healed on Sabbath). So then in 1500 the reformers broke through, cleaned off the barnacles and corruptions as best they could, and the body of Christ continued on, with true believers within the Catholic Church AND within various denominations of the Protestant church.
Again, nonsense. The logic is nonsensical at best if not insane, and the results speak for themselves.
1. Corrupt individuals in the Church never altered dogma one iota. Any who did were cast out as heretics, apostates, or infiltrating enemies of God. Over 40 Popes before 1958 were thus labelled, so this was not exclusive to random lay people.
2. The rules of the Catholic Chruch have (when followed) led to the unquestionably best societies mankind has ever seen. Protestantism has taken 500 years to destroy most of those advances and the underlying skeleton still upholds most of what is decent in the West and in the world.
3. Most Protestant churches are literally a business. And the “prosperity gospel” they sing is led by charlatans trained in mass hypnosis techniques like NLP.
4. Go on, tell me the requirements for being a “valid” Christian that fits all the “valid” Protestants. I’ll wait.
Oh good, I see you made an attempt here below…
The thing that defines the true church is believing in the reality of who God is – the loving and pure and completely Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit (but that’s not enough, even the demons get that far), and making an act of will (actually many acts of will) to trust Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and completely devote yourself to follow and love and serve God always (aka “confessing Jesus is Lord”, becoming a disciple, denying yourself, picking up the cross and following Christ, etc – all ways of describing the same thing, turning from darkness to light, from self to Christ).
Which is ALL Blah, blah, blah, and I begin to “refute” all of it according to at least 26,943 deonominations of Protestantism that will try to equate your “act of will” (a meaningless phrase if ever there was one) with “works” which they deny are required at all. And equally “refuted” by the other 25,000 denominations of Protestantism that believe in ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED. What acts of will are you even talking about, you near-Catholic! No, no, you just have to say Jesus is your boyfriend and you’re forever saved!
So now here we are, with a bunch of visible churches – a bajillion Protestant denominations, various flavors of Catholicism (ie traditional, charismatic), Orthodox, sedevacantism, etc, and only God knows what the Venn diagram overlap is between the visible church (anyone who calls themselves a Christian) and the invisible church (true Christians – true followers – true disciples, filled with the Holy Spirit and bearing the family resemblance to their Father).
Again, absolute nonsense regarding there being “flavours” of Catholicism. There is only ONE Catholic Church, always has been, always will be. The Novus Orco fake impostors are Satanists pretending to be Catholic. That’s it. Anyone thinking any of the fake Popes is legitimate is a moron, a liar or a satanist. That is all. There isn’t a “traditional” and a “charismatic” version of Catholicism. There is Catholicism, which follows what it always has, the infallible magisterium of the Church, which was compiled into one document in 1917, and then there is everything else, which is not Christianity.
Secondly, NO. There is ONLY one Church that is valid, and true and currently you need to follow the Bible and SEEK before you find it, which is still a million times easier than it was in say the year 400 under Roman persecution. There is no sense whatever in a Loving God that “hides” or makes it impossible for a human being that cares to know which is the real church. It’s a retarded concept. Like saying a father has children but never gives them any way of knowing that he is their father, for no reason at all other than what? Letting them be free to choose? It’s rubbish. Any loving father will say: Here I am son/daughter, and this are the rules of life that are best for you to be happy and healthy. The children then are free to listen or not and consequences will follow.
So why would someone need to belong to the Catholic Church specifically? Is it that you think the Catholic Church is the one that’s the closest to the teaching and Spirit of Christ, so it’s the best option for a visible church to be part of?
For a very simple reason. Not being Catholic and part of the Church means you end up in Hell. As Jesus specifically stated: You can only get to Heaven through him, the road to Hell is wide and well travelled, and the only way to Him is through His Church.
One more question for you: Peter’s name was Simon. Why did God (Jesus) change it to Peter?Answer in full please.
Jesus said “I am the vine, you are the branches – if a man remains in me and I in him he will bear much fruit – apart from Me you can do nothing” – so wouldn’t staying in Christ be the thing that defines whether someone is in the true church, instead of staying in a particular visible church be the thing that defines whether you belong to Christ?
Who Instituted the Church on Earth?
What are the rules he made for that Church?
Who has the authority to teach these rules?
How are you “staying in Christ” if you ignore the above 3 questions?
Lastly, just because you SAY you are Catholic does NOT automatically mean you are saved. We are not Protestants. You need to BE Catholic, not just pay lip service to it. Simply saying it is no proof against ending up in Hell along with the majority of people who will end up there.
3 – One of the advantages of having a unified Catholic Church is that it became a cultural force and shaped the countries and cultures that were converted.
Which were objectively better places for human beings to live than any other place on Earth. Let’s not forget this little detail, shall we? And go ahead and prove me wrong by referencing any other human society and comparing it with Catholicism.
One of the problems though is that if the authority of the church is unified like that, it is much more dangerous if it becomes corrupted.
Which it has attempted to become for two millennia in a row unceasingly. And has continued to fail to become corrupt, as well as it has failed to do so to this very day. As it did during the Arian Heresy and other times in history. No other organisation in the history of the Human race has withstood with its dogma intact for two millennia. And that is because the Church is protected from error by Jesus Himself and His promise to be with us to the end. There can be no other explanation. A faithful Catholic was never absent the Church since its establishment on Earth. Nor is anyone absent it today who cares to study the issue.
And it’s arguable that this is exactly what happened to the Catholic Church – it got corrupted from within and mostly has rotted out, but it’s been really hard for Catholics to accept sedevacantism because it’s so ingrained in them to follow the centralized authority.
So? It has always been thus, among humans, because, repeat it with me: Most humans are idiots. And idiots, just like the poor, will always be with us. As will sinners, error and corruption, for that is what original sin is. Nothing new here. Nor anything to be particularly worried about if you are an actual person that cares enough about God and the truth to research it properly and then follow it. The Catholic Church has always existed uninterrupted since its creation. It continues to exist now (in Sedevacantists) and will continue do so until the End Times.
Protestant churches are not nearly as much of a cultural force, especially nowadays (historically they have had more of a cultural impact).
Are you kidding?
The entire zeitgeist of the Western World is Protestant. Vatican II was instigated by a Jew and Protestants. The ENTIRE Churchainity of the Western world is wholly Protestant. “Everyone has his/her/Xhey’s “truth” and don’t you judge anyone, you bigot!” Is literally the very bedrock of Protestantism.
However, since there are lots of different churches and denominations, there is a built in checks and balances type of protection – if an individual church or denomination is corrupted, the Holy Sprit can spring up in another church or denomination very easily.
Again, utter and complete babbling nonsense. The average person can’t even read a paragraph and rewrite it in their own words while retaining the essential information in it but they are supposed to recognise individually the presence of the very “Holy Spirit” that literally EVERY single one of the 45,000 plus denominations of hellish Protestation against God claim for themselves? Please.
Kind of centralized authority vs free market. I can see advantages and disadvantages to both systems. I guess that’s more a comment than a question – but it seems like you only see the good side of the powerful centralized authority, vs the decentralized.
We’re not discussing economics. We are discussing the very nature of reality and truth. There is only ONE truth. ONE Authority. That’s it. Belief in God is not a “free market of ideas” for anyone except Pagans destined for Hell. Just like there is only ONE math. And anyone that can’t do it can’t achieve anything of meaning in the construction of any kind of building, object, or structure of any importance.
Ok, that was a lot. I appreciate any thoughts or comments you may have. My desire is to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and my neighbor as myself, and if becoming Catholic is the next step in front of me to do that, then that’s great. I just can’t quite see it clearly yet.
I suggest you start by educating yourself on the early history of the Church. A good introduction is the book The Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. He also has a second book, but I have not read it. For more in depth stuff read the works of the Patristic fathers from the early church. There are volumes of stuff even just from the first 200 years of the Church. So spend some time reading enthuse things.
Thank you! Best wishes and prayers of blessing for you and your family over there in Italy. I do see God’s love in you through your writing and I appreciate it.
Thank you. And while my responses can be “harsh” the intent too is I hope clear. I have never had patience with people that cannot be instructed. One of my mottos is “leave all the retards behind”.
I am not for everyone, nor am I meant to be. I was obviously created as I was with various talents best used as tip of the spear stuff when compared to many other souls far higher than mine in the hierarchy of things.In any case, I do wish you all the best, and may God’s Grace, Mercy and Love shine upon you and lead you to the Truth. It has been my experience that God never abandons us and He in fact helps us all get to Him if we but genuinely seek and ask, and make some real effort towards discovering those basic truths that His existence naturally must imply. I also just wrote a post entitled why denominations matter that may be of some use although it reiterates much of what I already stated here. I will anonymise your email, but it makes for decent reading, so I will use it as a subject for a post.
Thank you and may God bless you and your loved ones now and forever.
UPDATED REPLY
Awesome, thanks so much for your responses. Some of your points were really helpful and clarifying. I liked your illustration about having to work out all the rules of calculus or something like that from scratch. What a relief if we don’t have to do that with God. That makes a lot of sense that a loving Father would not leave us to do that. And really good point that the zeitgeist of the enlightenment and post-enlightenment modern world IS protestant – I hadn’t thought of it like that but I think you’re right. I do disagree with you when you say not anyone can be a “disciple” of Christ. Not anyone can be an apostle, but anyone who follows Christ is a disciple – that’s what disciple means (follower, apprentice, student). That’s why He said “go and make disciples of all nations”. So then the question is “what does following Christ actually mean in the real world, 2024?” And the case is becoming clearer to me that “following Christ” means being baptized into His original visible church and obeying His rules from the heart as taught by the people He entrusted with this task.
Precisely. Being a disciple means being Catholic.
And yes, I absolutely know that Christ founded His church on Peter (Petra, the original WWF “The Rock”), and that the authority of the apostles and their successors is what held the church together and kept the truth clean and uncorrupted, especially up until scripture was canonized. And after that too. I was trying to work out the difference between the spiritual reality of new life that Jesus talks about (ie John 3:16, you must be born of the Spirit), and the physical, visible reality of institutions. Trying to figure out what makes the “true church.” I’ve grown up being taught that it’s all about the inner life of the Spirit, and the outer institution doesn’t matter. But it’s sounding more like both are vital.
It’s quite nonsensical and typically Satanic to “assume” that the ONLY part that matters is the only one only God can judge and no man can know with certainty. Of course the external part matters, which is why the sedeprivationist point sticks out as glaring error to me. only totals sedevacantist position makes fully sense. While it is true that the internal forum is for God alone to judge, we as human beings MUST act on the visible external forum that can be observed and verified by all.
Thanks again – I really appreciate your time. I will check out that Four Witnesses book. I had read your post on denominations – that’s what impelled me to email you originally.
You’re welcome, and may your email help others too.
Apologies for the harshness. I write as I go, and the intent is never mean, just an expedient way to sort through those too dumb to bother with. Clearly not the case with you. Now we have established that I shall behave in a more correct manner, though I doubt very much I will ever achieve “gentleman” status!
