Fr. Gabriel Lavery

The more logical approach, lest we waste time debating questions on which you and I are not even speaking the same language, is to define: 1) What is "visibility" as explained by the theologians. 2) What things must exist at all times and in what way, also according to theologians, as essential to this visibility? For example, clearly a living Pope is not, or else, as Protestants have attempted to argue, the Church would have lost her visibility every time a Pope has died. Only then can we usefully spend time trying to identify *which* body of men claiming to be Catholic actually has the visibility as defined and as identified in these essentials. We could argue whether a grain of wheat and an apple are both fruits, but if I was using a scientific definition and you were using common parlance, our discussion would be doomed to failure from the start. On the other hand, if we had simply started by accepting a scientific definition, we could easily prove whether or not a wheat grain is a fruit. Since you are the one arguing that I do not belong to a visible Church, I'll let you answer the two questions above from theologians to begin.

Yes, I do deny it, contrary to what you assumed. It wouldn't be the first time you were wrong about something basic :) As for the Baltimore Catechism, let's start with the part about the 1st Commandment, heresy, worshipping with false religions... It's going to be an amazing class!

Two totally and fundamentally different things. One is the case of a layman (Esquire, et al.) trying to pick apart papal teaching that has not the slightest evidence of heresy, let alone blatant heresy, in it, simply because he thinks he knows more than the Pope and can judge better than the Church. The other is a case of a manifest and complete absence of the Four Marks of the Church in a new religion that even an untrained theologian can see is not the Catholic one. If it was forbidden to all except the most highly trained theologians to decided upon or recognize the absence or presence of the Marks of the Church in any particular religious body, then it would be impossible for anyone to ever recognize the Catholic Church as the true one unless he had first received a doctorate in theology from the very Church whose authority he had not yet recognized as true. This is an untenable position, completely erroneous, leading to the conclusion that we are all hopelessly lost and can never arrive at the truth. There is a reason Popes and theologians teach that manifest heresy bars one from membership in the Church, because such is totally and forever incompatible with being a member of that visible society.

Some criticized St. Robert Bellarmine for "wasting time" writing pamphlets in the vernacular in response to the attacks on papal authority made by the schismatic priest, Sarpi and the "Seven Theologians." They said it was beneath his dignity to write little pamphlets like that, not in Latin and toward such scurrilous recipients. He responded by saying that it was precisely because the pamphlets were in the vernacular and so public, that they were calculated to do much harm to unsuspecting faithful, and therefore, there was a duty to provide the antidote in the same forum and to the same audience. The anti-Catholic printing press run by incompetent, disobedient men, has been replaced by incompetent, disobedient men running their mouths on social media and podcasts.

Idk. That wasn't the point. The point is writers at Integrity have a common theme: Putting their own Jansenistic or otherwise twisted spin on Catholic doctrine, then presenting it to the world as the true Catholic teaching with a false purist mentality, accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a liberal or subpar Catholic, numerous true Popes included. While they claim and pretend to be submissive to the Magisterium, they simply disregard it and say it is non-binding whenever it doesn't fit with their own pet ideas. A very convenient arrangement! Say you are a most loyal Catholic, faithful to the Popes, then simply say something was "non-binding," "practical judgment," "error in prudence" whenever you no longer wish to submit. So it is not at all surprising to see what Esquire wrote. This may not apply to all the writers at Integrity, but it is a blatantly obvious theme among many of them, especially the primary ones, and a magazine that claims to be "integrally" Catholic has no business allowing such writers and such attitudes to be part of it. Now, if it instead marketed itself as a Feeneyite publication, I would expect nothing other.

Pretty sure the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church never needed—and doesn't now need—"unique" opinions of 20-some-year-olds. Anyone who believes that solving the errors of our day requires new theological opinions or movements is gravely mistaken. The answer is and always has been an absolutely faithful adherence to tried and true theology as taught by the Church and her approved theologians. R&R, the Thesis Cassiciacum, "Integralists," Feeneyites, Kwasniewskiites, and Novus Ordites have all failed because each of them, in some way or another, has resorted to solutions not taught by the Church and not needed by the Church. We don't need 20-some-year-olds with new ideas, political or otherwise, to compete with the old-bad-new ideas tried by their elders for the last several decades. We don't need new principles and new definitions to try to explain away things that have already been accepted by all theologians and taught by the Church for centuries, such as the jurisdiction needed for confessions, the authority of the Pope even in non-infallible pronouncements, the duty of obedience to the Pope, the visibility and apostolicity of the Church, conditions for being a member of the Church, incapacity for and loss of office due to heresy, political errors, errors of Nazism, slavery, etc. We simply need everyone of all ages to return to Catholic theology, to what the Church has always done and taught, and what she always will do and teach. There is a certain flattering of the intellect to which a man (especially young!) is exposed when it wishes to believe that it has arrived at a truth that others have missed. Yet, as St. Jerome, in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, says he heard tongue-in-cheek from his teacher: "Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt." We like to think our ideas are fresh and new—thought of by no one else before us. Yet, in matters of faith, especially, if our ideas are true, they must necessarily be old, and we cannot take credit for them. If they are truly new, then we ought to beware lest we have been deceived by the secret desire to flatter our intellect rather than defend the truth as already taught by the Church. We need zealous youth, indeed—and zealous old men too—but men zealous for the old truths, not new "truths," nor old truths co-opted by new political movements that they never needed. The only way out of the current situation is an exact adherence to traditional theological principles and the teachings of the Popes in every single matter without deviating one iota either to the right or to the left.

Have you even read his stuff? He explicitly says he believes fascism is the answer at the moment as a stepping stone to whatever future grand scheme he has. When someone makes statements, they better be prepared to defend them, and he is not. He's not prepared to defend the Catholic faith, either. He should sign off and stop presenting himself as the mouthpiece for Catholic teaching.

The consecration to IHM was done. Pius XII did it. In case you didn't know, he was the pope... and you're not. 😃 Popes have full authority over these matters and have used it many times in the past to determine what is and what is not required to fulfill conditions to which some promise is attached in a private revelation. For example, the Popes have substituted the Little Office of Our Lady for the Divine Office for gaining the Sabbatine privilege. The requirement, as revealed by Our Lady, was the Divine Office. The Popes have, furthermore, even given confessors the power to substitute any other practice for this for good reason. None of that is in accordance with the *strict* letter of the conditions given by Our Lady, but the popes did it because they have the power to do it. Guess who doesn't have the power? You.

The Fascist government already failed, and so have many others. Do you disagree with Fr. Fenton on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights? All governments are failing now, and that's not because they have one form or another. It's because, as the Book of Proverbs says: "Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable" (14:34). To believe that a group of untrained young men with white supremacist ideas is going to save the world with fascist ideas and hubris on a podcast is delusional.

1) The Thesis priests invented a story that divine law doesn't even require jurisdiction--that they receive everything they need from Holy Orders itself. I don't know why you consider that in any way honest or preferable. 2) I have never argued that canon law is the end all and be all of the ability of the Church to grant jurisdiction. I have specifically argued the contrary against those who are obsessed with legalism and the literal text of the law to the detriment of the supreme law of salvation of souls which is always considered by the Church in everything she does, and definitely in the granting of jurisdiction. 3) That being said, in the 1917 Code, for the first time ever, the Church incorporated many specific laws, such as C. 209, authoritatively codifying general principles of law and supplying of jurisdiction which theologians had already taught for centuries even though they were nowhere found explicitly in the laws of the Church. These laws even broader with a sweeping statement in C. 20, which theologians have applied in conjunction with C. 209 and others to argue jurisdiction is supplied to priests in cases there is no express mention of it in the Code. They apply this specifically to jurisdiction for confession in cases that are not common error, nor probable doubt, nor danger of death, nor any case explicitly covered in the canons. The examples they give are cases far less extreme than our current situation. 4) I can give numerous quotes from theologians backing up the statements in number numbers 2 and 3 above. Thus, your objection or inability to understand the underlying theological and canonical principles is not an objection to *my* teachings, but to the teachings of the absolute best and most highly regarded canonists and theologians, with whom neither you nor I are any comparison whatsoever. That should make you stop and think. 5) Your claim that we are defending "perpetual faculties" is plain evidence that you don't even understand what is being said, nor the fundamental principles being discussed. No one has ever argued perpetual faculties. There are limits to supplied jurisdiction just as there are to every other manner of receiving jurisdiction. Even the jurisdiction of a true Pope is not perpetual, since it ends when he dies. Supplied or delegated jurisdiction, operates under specific conditions which limit it. It is absurd for you to call it perpetual. This is a great topic for discussion, but when you say things like that, you completely derail any useful discussion.

I debated two Thesis priests (neither RCI but both well-known, long-time Thesis holders) in a private message group for 2-3 years. They just kept repeating the same worn out taglines for their brand of theology and wouldn't engage in pursuing the underlying logic or lack thereof. It was like arguing with a Feeneyite who keeps responding, "But John 3:5 says...," to every single argument you make instead of actually addressing the theology. I also once had an impromptu discussion for about an hour on the subject of the Thesis with Fr. Desposito in front of many of the seminarians. Besides, contrary to your assumption, which is totally gratuitous as usual, I have been to the seminary in Reading. You just don't seem to grasp the fact that the Thesis is truly a theological monstrosity, and that is why I don't accept it, why Fr. Cekada didn't accept it, why SGG doesn't accept it, and why the vast majority of sede clergy don't accept it. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will get over your terrible habit of accusing people of simply wanting to attack the Thesis for no good reason. Their recent errors on jurisdiction for confession is just one example. If you know anything about theology, you would know they have completely thrown out the teaching of all theologians on this subject in order to follow a theory that was rejected 800 years ago even by the man who originallypromoted it, and which was not revived until centuries later by Jansenists, and again just before V2 by an ultra-modernist theologian and disciple of Karl Rahner, whom Fr. Dutertre tried to reference to support his errors a year ago.

Funny of you to accuse Thesis opponents of refusing an honest debate when they have done nothing of the sort, then to defend Thesists who have blocked me and everyone else capable of refuting them. Who is it that doesn't want honest debate? As for theological errors, yes, the Thesists have an abundance of them. You saying they don't doesn't make it so. As for jurisdiction in an imperfect general council, we have provided multiple theologians and a Doctor of the Church stating that Christ gives the jurisdiction in that case. Thesists have responded by saying that Christ cannot do so, but they have given no logical reason or proof. Perhaps you should study the arguments before making accusations.