You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
CrusaderPepe on scored.co
21 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)2 children
“TL;DW” is not a good basis for claiming the video left something unanswered. It's rude, offensive to the person (myself, you puts hours of work into his videos), and self-entitled. But to clarify:
This is not simply a case of Vatican II or the 1983 Code “deforming” Lateran IV. Canons 67–70 were medieval disciplinary measures, not dogma; their universal legal force did not remain unchanged until Vatican II. The canons actually stopped being enforced once Europe was pretty much controlled by Protestants and Freemasons (the last of these canons ended when the Italian Freemasons took the Papal States from Pope Pius IX in the late 19th Century). And Vatican II itself was not a code of canon law.
On usury: Canon 67 did not positively approve ordinary interest. It imposed a specified remedy against “oppressive and excessive” exactions. The broader tradition distinguishes a gratuitous mutuum from other contracts and recognizes extrinsic titles such as real loss, risk, delay, or foregone gain. That is not permission to exploit need. Unjust profit extracted from a borrower’s necessity remains usury.
And yes: the verse is Luke 6:35, not 6:36—“lend, hoping for nothing thereby.” That is a real Christian ideal and should shape Catholic social life. It does not automatically settle every technical question about modern credit contracts, but it certainly rules out making the poor man’s necessity a source of profit.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article is useful background, but it is a 1912 reference work, not a magisterial text.
Speaking of Vatican II's Nostra Aetate, I written multiple articles and videos on the subject (showing how the Jews subverted the Council, and simultaneously how the text can be read in light of the Adversus Judaeos Tradition), and although I don't expect you to read or watch them, here they are:
On The Jewish Influence Behind Nostra Aetate:
https://youtu.be/4t3kuTLE8pY
The Two Words Everyone Ignores in Vatican II:
https://youtu.be/HHykSp2__TI
Nostra Aetate: No Doctrine Changed — So Why Did Everything Change?:
https://youtu.be/mkkM14vGaQY
My Articles on Nostra Aetate:
What The Catholic Church Teaches About The Jews – Part 12:
And let me make this clear: I will NOT answer your questions going forward if you refuse to engage my work. It's rude and self-entitled, and if you even push the matter, I will likely block you. I absolutely LOVE answering questions from people who engage in my work. But I cannot stand rude, self-entitled people that demand answers from me, that if they'd actually engage with my work, they'd already have the answer to.
"tl;dw" literally means "too long, didn't watch" - I'm merely declaring a commenting before or without watching based on the title (definitely not intending any kind of disrespect or intending to suggest the video didn't cover something, so apologies if that was the impression given)
(the reason for not watching being... we have seen a lot of content posted from "traditionalists". I was curious how do you view your content as different or are there complimentary related channels to check out?)
and, kind of unrelated to watching or not, I guess I was wondering the context of the video - are we trying to revive such canons? I wasn't sure what to watch for.
> Canons 67–70 were medieval disciplinary measures
I know what "tl;dw" means, but can you see how that could be offensive to someone who spends hours producing a video, and then you expect your questions answered without bothering to watch (a not very long) video that may answer your questions? Can you see how that comes off entitled? But I appreciate your apology. God bless!
> Reconciling Nostra Aetate with Catholic Tradition
I think here's a clear refutation of "textualism":
The issue that throws everyone off is that of a "category error" maybe, where the Vatican 2 texts are in the category of being 1) objectively ambiguous. They are not 2) clearly Catholic, or 3) clearly non-Catholic.
As I gather with textualism, you are acknowledging Vatican 2 is #1 objectively ambiguous, but then are trying to argue that #2 actually via "textualism" a given ambiguous statement is #2 clearly Catholic.
However, since the text is "objectively ambiguous", it can also be interpreted to have a #3 clearly non-Catholic meaning. Ergo, it must be rejected as "doubtful" (some sedevacantists have argued it to be "heretical") because it is not a #2 clear Catholic teaching.
Consider the validity of sacraments. They are like #2, clearly valid, or #3 clearly invalid, but there is also the possibility of doubts occurring about the validity of the sacrament, and so they are considered to be like #1, doubtfully invalid.
Hence I am arguing Vatican 2 has #1 doubtful validity, and thus to resolve to a state of #2 Catholic certainty, Vatican 2's ambiguous statements must be restated as #2 clear Catholic teachings, and the contrary possible #3 opposed interpretations must be openly rejected. This would be like a sacrament being given "conditionally" to remove doubts (#1) to move to a state of greater certainty about the validity of the sacrament (#2).
Therefore I believe the practical program to resolve the doubt could be considering Vatican 2 as doubtful, of a Vatican 2 amended document being issued that affirms all exclusive #2 Catholic interpretations of doubtful passages are affirmed, all #3 heretical interpretations are openly rejected, of the Vatican 2 papal claimants who taught doubtfully as being considered "doubtful popes, and therefore no popes" (Catholic principle regarding the papacy), for a new election of a pope to take place based on these clearly agreed upon norms, and then of the situation of the clergy being straightened out.
(For "hardline" sedevacantists, they have no licit clergy and have considered the clergy claimants connected to the Vatican 2 church to be [edit: illicit], leaving sedevacantists without clear clergy - I believe once enough people become sedevacantists, we could probably have a discussion and sort this issue out).
A major objection to "hardline" sedevacantism is emotional, i.e. there are millions of souls of non-sedevacantists endangered if sedevacantism is true, ergo there are attempts to argue against sedevacantism. I propose a "non-hardline" sedevacantist alternative, whereby - where I think textualism and things like "sedeprivationism" may be getting at, in looking for a "third alternative" - that we may be in a situation like the Western Schism, which was not a formal or even material schism for most Catholics who may have followed antipopes innocently, but they were considered to be "fully Catholic" even while "materially" following antipopes.
I propose we may be in a different but similar situation, whereby people who have innocently followed antipopes and false teaching of Vatican 2 "in good faith" may be judged as blameless before God. But, I propose otherwise the practical regimen of like of treating a doubtful sacrament with conditional reception of the sacrament to remove doubts (i.e. such who identify as Catholic should become aware of the Vatican 2 movement not being Catholic, should reject it, and we need to move to a Vatican that has fully rejected the ambiguity of Vatican 2 and such inspired reforms in that direction).
So, if you have any ideas to further this conversation, let me know.
This is not simply a case of Vatican II or the 1983 Code “deforming” Lateran IV. Canons 67–70 were medieval disciplinary measures, not dogma; their universal legal force did not remain unchanged until Vatican II. The canons actually stopped being enforced once Europe was pretty much controlled by Protestants and Freemasons (the last of these canons ended when the Italian Freemasons took the Papal States from Pope Pius IX in the late 19th Century). And Vatican II itself was not a code of canon law.
On usury: Canon 67 did not positively approve ordinary interest. It imposed a specified remedy against “oppressive and excessive” exactions. The broader tradition distinguishes a gratuitous mutuum from other contracts and recognizes extrinsic titles such as real loss, risk, delay, or foregone gain. That is not permission to exploit need. Unjust profit extracted from a borrower’s necessity remains usury.
And yes: the verse is Luke 6:35, not 6:36—“lend, hoping for nothing thereby.” That is a real Christian ideal and should shape Catholic social life. It does not automatically settle every technical question about modern credit contracts, but it certainly rules out making the poor man’s necessity a source of profit.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article is useful background, but it is a 1912 reference work, not a magisterial text.
Speaking of Vatican II's Nostra Aetate, I written multiple articles and videos on the subject (showing how the Jews subverted the Council, and simultaneously how the text can be read in light of the Adversus Judaeos Tradition), and although I don't expect you to read or watch them, here they are:
On The Jewish Influence Behind Nostra Aetate:
https://youtu.be/4t3kuTLE8pY
The Two Words Everyone Ignores in Vatican II:
https://youtu.be/HHykSp2__TI
Nostra Aetate: No Doctrine Changed — So Why Did Everything Change?:
https://youtu.be/mkkM14vGaQY
My Articles on Nostra Aetate:
What The Catholic Church Teaches About The Jews – Part 12:
https://christtheking.info/what-the-catholic-church-teaches-about-the-jews-part-12/
Reconciling Nostra Aetate with Catholic Tradition:
https://christtheking.info/reconciling-nostra-aetate-with-catholic-tradition/
Nostra Aetate on the Jews: Origins, Actors, and Tradition:
https://christtheking.info/catholic-resources-on-adversus-judaeos/nostra-aetate-on-the-jews-origins-actors-and-tradition/
And let me make this clear: I will NOT answer your questions going forward if you refuse to engage my work. It's rude and self-entitled, and if you even push the matter, I will likely block you. I absolutely LOVE answering questions from people who engage in my work. But I cannot stand rude, self-entitled people that demand answers from me, that if they'd actually engage with my work, they'd already have the answer to.
Thanks, and God bless!
(the reason for not watching being... we have seen a lot of content posted from "traditionalists". I was curious how do you view your content as different or are there complimentary related channels to check out?)
and, kind of unrelated to watching or not, I guess I was wondering the context of the video - are we trying to revive such canons? I wasn't sure what to watch for.
> Canons 67–70 were medieval disciplinary measures
based on Divine Law though I think?
I think here's a clear refutation of "textualism":
The issue that throws everyone off is that of a "category error" maybe, where the Vatican 2 texts are in the category of being 1) objectively ambiguous. They are not 2) clearly Catholic, or 3) clearly non-Catholic.
As I gather with textualism, you are acknowledging Vatican 2 is #1 objectively ambiguous, but then are trying to argue that #2 actually via "textualism" a given ambiguous statement is #2 clearly Catholic.
However, since the text is "objectively ambiguous", it can also be interpreted to have a #3 clearly non-Catholic meaning. Ergo, it must be rejected as "doubtful" (some sedevacantists have argued it to be "heretical") because it is not a #2 clear Catholic teaching.
Consider the validity of sacraments. They are like #2, clearly valid, or #3 clearly invalid, but there is also the possibility of doubts occurring about the validity of the sacrament, and so they are considered to be like #1, doubtfully invalid.
Hence I am arguing Vatican 2 has #1 doubtful validity, and thus to resolve to a state of #2 Catholic certainty, Vatican 2's ambiguous statements must be restated as #2 clear Catholic teachings, and the contrary possible #3 opposed interpretations must be openly rejected. This would be like a sacrament being given "conditionally" to remove doubts (#1) to move to a state of greater certainty about the validity of the sacrament (#2).
Therefore I believe the practical program to resolve the doubt could be considering Vatican 2 as doubtful, of a Vatican 2 amended document being issued that affirms all exclusive #2 Catholic interpretations of doubtful passages are affirmed, all #3 heretical interpretations are openly rejected, of the Vatican 2 papal claimants who taught doubtfully as being considered "doubtful popes, and therefore no popes" (Catholic principle regarding the papacy), for a new election of a pope to take place based on these clearly agreed upon norms, and then of the situation of the clergy being straightened out.
(For "hardline" sedevacantists, they have no licit clergy and have considered the clergy claimants connected to the Vatican 2 church to be [edit: illicit], leaving sedevacantists without clear clergy - I believe once enough people become sedevacantists, we could probably have a discussion and sort this issue out).
A major objection to "hardline" sedevacantism is emotional, i.e. there are millions of souls of non-sedevacantists endangered if sedevacantism is true, ergo there are attempts to argue against sedevacantism. I propose a "non-hardline" sedevacantist alternative, whereby - where I think textualism and things like "sedeprivationism" may be getting at, in looking for a "third alternative" - that we may be in a situation like the Western Schism, which was not a formal or even material schism for most Catholics who may have followed antipopes innocently, but they were considered to be "fully Catholic" even while "materially" following antipopes.
I propose we may be in a different but similar situation, whereby people who have innocently followed antipopes and false teaching of Vatican 2 "in good faith" may be judged as blameless before God. But, I propose otherwise the practical regimen of like of treating a doubtful sacrament with conditional reception of the sacrament to remove doubts (i.e. such who identify as Catholic should become aware of the Vatican 2 movement not being Catholic, should reject it, and we need to move to a Vatican that has fully rejected the ambiguity of Vatican 2 and such inspired reforms in that direction).
So, if you have any ideas to further this conversation, let me know.