Shameless Popery

What Luther Was ACTUALLY Excommunicated For... Watch the full episode here: youtu.be/IlYoZU74NYA

My concern is the salvation of souls. To that end, I talk with a lot of people: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and I was interviewed by a gay ex-Catholic. You're upset about this for some reason, and responding to it by blatantly lying repeatedly despite being corrected by lots of people. Absurd behavior, and I don't think I'll have anything more to add.

@ShamelessPopery @Mendenhall4Dan This is the community you deliberately sought out and defend by engaging with Wagner. This is what your actions have said this is the reality of the internet people with loud voices such as y’all’s are responsible for the community you keep.

I haven't followed Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry closely enough to know how much we agree on all things Catholic, but he's definitely right about Kansas City:

Why are you saying these things about me? None of this is true. obviously that guy is being a disgusting troll, it's right there in the username. but I don't know how you get from “A person said something gross in your comments” to “You didn't think that was gross.” What planet are you living on here?

@ShamelessPopery @Mendenhall4Dan Joe thinks this community isn’t white supremacist

@Mendenhall4Dan @chosenaxiom I don't know. But I *will* admit to being a bit of a Kansas City supremacist.

@ShamelessPopery @chosenaxiom How is it that Mr. Bradley took your little comment expressing appreciation for Kansas City and transform that into an accusation of white supremacy???

@RorateCaeli “Subsistit in,” you say?

We have to remember the 1950s, and the general optimism of post-war prosperity in the West. From West Germany to South America, it was a period of intense economic growth and hope. People really believed in such things as the United Nations. And, of course, though weakened, we are still living within the 1945 structures. Which perhaps explains why the “Conciliar Church” myth persists: it can only subsist in this reality.

Paul Never Told Them To Start A New Church Watch the full episode here: youtu.be/IlYoZU74NYA

@chosenaxiom @WalmartThomist This is what I mean by guilt by association - it's possible for groypers to like someone who is not themselves a groyper. But also, check out this thread real quick and then tell me how much the groypers love me: x.com/ShamelessPoper…

@ShamelessPopery @WalmartThomist I have enough evidence from the community of groyper accounts that come out the woodwork, anytime someone crosses Wagner . I get yall want that groyper audience but whatever I’ll just stop listening.

But I have said my views, several times, outright. I think racism is evil. Is your evidence to the contrary just that I work with an avowed white supremacist, who happens to be (a) not actually a coworker, and (b) not actually an avowed white supremacist? I haven't followed this drama closely at all, so maybe there's some body of evidence that's out there, but this looks like pretty flimsy guilt by association stuff so far.

@ShamelessPopery @WalmartThomist Look, I get that both you and Wagner know not to outright say your beliefs but I have seen enough of Wagners streams and Dogwhistles to know what he actually believes. The “joke’s” aren’t hidden. So when promote his stuff I regret the support I had given your organization.

@chosenaxiom @WalmartThomist Wait, you guys? am I in on this white supremacist thing now, too? I just got through a whole cycle of the Weird Internet accusing me of being too nice to the Jews, and now this?

@ShamelessPopery @WalmartThomist They will say of course not, and then continue to encourage their audience to be white supremacists you guys think you are clever but you aren’t.

I wasn't playing coy. You said I worked with a white supremacist, and then it took like four messages back and forth just to figure out what you meant, all while you acted like your vagueness was my problem. @WalmartThomist, are you a white supremacist? This is news to me. (And surprising, given that @sincead33 was with us on one of those streams).

@ShamelessPopery Does hour plus livestream with avowed white supremacist Christian Wagner. Then plays coy when called out standard Fuentes follower playbook.

@chosenaxiom Sorry, I've tried several times to get you to just make whatever accusation you're trying to make clearly, but it's just not working.

@ShamelessPopery You’ve literally done hour+ long interviews with his generals

@chosenaxiom I've been critical of Fuentes and have never worked with him.

@ShamelessPopery And here we see a Catholic Answers Staff doing the classic follower of Fuentes tactic just like Wagner and pinesapp. False confusion that he already knows the answer. I’m quite happy I’m not a convert who was convince by you guys because I would leave after finding out.

@TD_Barrett San Diego is pretty great, not gonna lie.

@ShamelessPopery I am partial to Sacramento but if I could choose any it would be San Diego.

@chosenaxiom I'm genuinely not sure what you're talking about here.

@ShamelessPopery But you have with avowed and obvious white supremacists. Which honestly makes me question a lot of things.

@chosenaxiom I've never worked with him?

@ShamelessPopery You don’t pay much attention to the views a lot of people you work with sadly.

Confession IS legal, that's part of the point. When you are forgiven of your sins, you are going before God as the just Judge. You have committed a crime against Him and seek His clemency. When you go to the priest, he stands before you not only as a representative of Christ but also as a deputed minister of the Church in whose authority he acts.

Why does there need to be a "grant of jurisdiction for valid confessions" ? That sounds so oddly governmental and legal. I can confess directly to God and KNOW that my sins have been forgiven. Do you not see all the legalistic layers you have added to keep right with God? How then do you even enjoy God if I am always in a "court of law"?

@WalmartThomist has good background on the history of jurisdiction and confession. The Traditional teaching is clear here.

I would be happy to. (1) Start by putting the passage back in context. In Matt. 23:8-9, after criticizing the hubris of the Pharisees, Jesus says, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (2) Jesus talks here about there’s one Father, but also one teacher, just as elsewhere he talks about how there “shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16). Difficulties immediately jump out. After all, there are plenty of fathers, teachers, and shepherds in this world, and the Bible acknowledges this fact repeatedly. (3) Perhaps you’ll explain this away by saying that “Jesus doesn’t mean that literally, he’s just talking about SPIRITUAL fathers, teachers, and shepherds.” That still doesn’t work. As you may know, “pastor” means “shepherd” (poimēn in Greek). So when St. Paul says that God’s “gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,” he’s literally saying “shepherds and teachers,” and he’s clearly talking about their being multiple SPIRITUAL pastors and teachers. But what about spiritual fathers? Listen to his words to the Corinthians: “though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4:15). (4) So at this point, it should be clear that Matthew 23:8-9 cannot be read to literally prohibit calling someone a father (or teacher) in either an earthly or spiritual sense. At this point, some people pivot to a third interpretation: you can have spiritual fathers, but you aren’t allowed to use Father as a TITLE. The problem here is the use of “Father Abraham” as a title for Abraham in the New Testament. We see him addressed twice as “Father Abraham” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:24, 30), as well as references to “our father Abraham” or “your father Abraham” in places like Luke 1:73, John 8:53-56, Acts 7:2, and Romans 4:12. (5) I’ve heard people attempt to distinguish this by saying that Abraham is just their father in the sense of being a distant ancestor, but that’s obviously bad exegesis. Jesus says that “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did” (John 8:39), making clear that Abraham’s fatherhood is spiritual rather than biological. As St. Paul says in Romans 4:16, “it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants—not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all…” So Father Abraham is our father in faith, if we do what he did. At this point, it should be clear that the Evangelical attack on “Father” as a spiritual title is based on a shallow and misguided misreading of Matthew 23:8-9. But that still leaves a question: if Jesus ISN’T literally banning the word “father” or the title “Father,” what is He teaching? He’s teaching that there is no fatherhood and no pastoral authority apart from its sole origin in God. St. Paul again: “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father (Patēr), from whom every family (patria) in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:14-15). Elsewhere, we’re told the same thing about other types of authority, like civil authority: “for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1; see also John 19:11; 1 Peter 2:13-17). What Jesus is saying in a Semitic way in Matthew 23 – that the only true authority is God’s authority, the only true teacher is God, the only true Father is God – is the same thing expressed in a more literal way by the New Testament authors elsewhere. So a pastor or spiritual father who builds themselves up rather than God/the Gospel is sinning, but it’s not wrong to say (as St. Paul does) that you’re someone else’s spiritual father through the Gospel. If I may ask you a question in return... is this your first time hearing a Catholic explain the passage in this way?

I left in my 20s. It doesn't take much erudition and study to see that "call no man father" goes counter to what the Holy Father said. So, erudition and study - by your argument I should have returned by now. Show me your erudition and study. Justify calling every priest father and why Jesus is all for that. Simple issue, simple question.

Plenty of smart Protestants go to (Protestant) seminary and are confirmed in their views. Plenty of smart Catholics go to seminary and are confirmed in our views. Neither of these facts is surprising or particularly persuasive. But there are also many smart and seemingly holy, devout Protestants who study theology and Church history and they realize they have to become Catholic. This happens with enough frequency that entire books have been written about the phenomenon, as well as collections of testimonies. I personally know several former Protestant pastors who are now Catholic. I don't know of anysmart and seemingly holy, devout Catholics who study theology and Church history and realized they needed to become Protestant. To be clear, I know plenty of former Catholics (most of them now non-religious, some of them now Protestant), but invariably they didn't know or believe Catholic teaching even *before* they left the Church, and most will tell you that. I think this should be cause for reflection on both sides. On the one hand, there's clearly a problem within Catholicism of not forming the next generation well enough (this is improving, but there's a lot of work to do). And I think if I was a Protestant I would be alarmed by the fact that the more people look at the evidence, the more likely they are to conclude that Protestantism is false and Catholicism is true.

You're missing a pretty simple distinction. Those guys came to Catholicism in no small part BECAUSE of their erudition and study. That was clearly not the case for you since you left as a kid. Nobody is insulting you or the nuns or priests, etc. But it's not like your journey (even by your own telling) was the result of some kind of careful research. You'd just never read the Bible.

Deflection. Insult to the nuns and priests. The only attraction of Beckwith and Hahn for you guys is that they are Catholic. I have the same credentials and a member of the same societies (ETS, SBL) but I am dismissed out of hand because I crossed the Tiber in the other direction.

@caseybogs @holysmoke Don't think it helps the SSPX case to say they're in union with him in the way that St. Thomas More was in union with Henry VIII. That's the fear.

@holysmoke I’d say there is parallel to St. Thomas More: “We are excommunicated as the Pope’s servant, but God’s first.”

I’ve been to Anglo-Catholic churches that display a photo of the Pope and insert his name into their version of the Roman canon. I’m not equating valid SSPX Masses with C of E communion services but please, spare us the protestations of loyalty to the Holy Father.