In typical, cowardly, effeminate, weak, English, passive-aggressive fashion, Bruce Charlton, or Brucie, as he will henceforth be named, has obviously seen my latest exposition of him for the liar, blackpiller and general heretical gnostic and non-christian sophist that he is.
Because trust me, that little wormtongue checks to see what I say. Except he is too cowardly to actually come out and try and respond, so instead he makes some vagueposting about sedevacantists.
So, because he probably has some kind of humiliation fetish, in line with all his other “quirky” passive aggressive, worm-tonguing, I will oblige, and once more vivisect his rubbish right here at my blog. His rubbish has a grey background to represent the fog-fart nature of his shrivelled soul.
Well, Brucie, that would be because there was little to nothing wrong with the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. I mean, it was already infested to the gills with communists, homosexuals and Freemasons, as history has proven, and Bella Dodds has confessed, along with other undeniable proofs, some of which I highlighted in my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church. But that problem aside, the Dogma of The Church was as pristine as it has ever been. Not that most would know it, since most have literally no actual idea what the dogma of the Catholic Church is. They only THINK they do, thanks to 500 years of Satanic/Protestant lies, as even other honest Protestants will readily admit, like the Baptist Rodney Stark in his Bearing False Witness, or the man who wrote The Four Witnesses, Rod Bennett, who ended up converting as a result of reading up on the first 200 years of Christianity.
This is worth contemplating because it shows that a Catholic as devout as Tolkien could be in deep opposition to Vatican II; but without making reference to “legalistic” aspects of the validity of Papal elections. I imagine Tolkien would have found that whole “sedevacantist” line of argument on both sides to be extremely distressing and fraught with dangers – especially when engaged-in by lay people.
God, Brucie, you’re such a raging faggot. Let me explain ladies and gents: Here, Brucie, while he waves his wrist limply in my general direction but without ever making eye contact, is trying to imply that because people like me (probably, as far as Brucie knows, and thinks, and expects) respect the memory of Tolkien not just as a writer (personally I respect him a lot more for having literally invented the Elvish language. JRR would have been an absolute genial game master for a Dungeons and Dragons game!) but as a Catholic.
So, because Brucie says so, I (and other sedevacantists) are supposed to now assume that Brucie had a direct line of knowing what JRR would have thought or said about Sedevacantism, and because Bruce says so, we should recoil in horror at taking a position Brucie imagines JRR might have had (should have, according to Brucie, nay would have had) with respect to Sedevacantism. That’s right ladies and gents, we are supposed to assume because Brucie says so, that Tolkien would have wagged a stern finger in our direction and told us: Bad Catholic! Submit to a fake Pope.
Seriously. How passive aggressive and sophistic and gay, GAY, Brucie, GAY, do you have to be to behave like such a little, whiny, bitch?
Besides which, what do you care? You like the Moronic Mormons. Go find yourself a tuba hat with a “seer-stone” in it so you can decipher your own bullshit, eh, Brucie?
This may have some implications for traditionalist Catholics who all agree that the RCC took a severe wrong turn, a down-turn and movement towards apostasy, with the Second Vatican Council.
Oh Mah GAWD! Brucie! Bring out the fainting couches! IMPLICATIONS you say (with emphasis on YOU SAY) Good God Brucie, what’s next? Will CONSEQUENCES ever be the same again, now, after the IMPLICATIONS?
My point is that the disastrous nature of Vatican II may be regarded as common ground among serious Roman Catholics. And indeed all serious Christians of any- or no-denomination, who wish for the recovery and renewal of spiritual health in the largest and most influential Christian church – this may be common ground quite apart from the legal arguments.
What a transparent and ineffective satanist you are Brucie.
Translation: Because Catholics recognise that the Novus Ordo is just the latest and most noxious branch of Protestant heresy (with apology to the Protestants, really, because the Novus Orco really is Satanic) everyone should come together and all be “christians” together. Making the satanic nonsense of the fake churches a common cause, why a… a… dare I say it, a fraternity even, you know, like in the Freemason words of “Spiritual Fraternity among men of Goodwill”. What’s your code name in the “brotherhood” Brucie? I propose if they haven’t given you a Freemason codename yet you ask for Brucie-of-the-flower.
In other words; sedevacantism can reasonably be regarded as one of several (or many) possible hypotheses for explaining the disastrous effect of Vatican II; and, most importantly, how to set it right.
And here he is, trying to add sewage to sedevacantism. The usual sewage by the way, nothing original even.
“Oh it’s just a THEORY!”
“Just one of many HYPOTHESES, you see”
“It’s all very LEGALISTIC and COMPLICATED, you see.”
No Brucie, No.
It’s childishly simple. The Catholic Church has and always had, unchangeable divine dogma, which is ALL codified, and was ALL collated and summarised and approved by the INFALLIBLE Magisterium of the Church in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.
That’s ALL the Rules of Catholicism from the year zero to 1917 all in one place, Brucie. And guess what, as Code 188 part 4 makes eminently clear, as do ALL the other even tangentially related codes to it, ANYONE, who publicly defects from the faith —which teaching heresy as though it was valid doctrine counts and always has counted as doing so— is no longer a representative of the Church, and NO ONE need say or approve, or pass ANYTHING. Its done. The law itself convicts them. It’s VERY clear, and VERY simple. A Child gets it. If you are NOT a CATHOLIC, you are not in the club. You can’t speak for it, you are not part of it, you are irrelevant to it, and even anything you did while you might have been a member before then, becomes instantly invalid and worthless. It’s Very, very, very, simple and only sophists and freemasons like you have tried to make it “complicated” by lying, and lying, and lying, with every breath you take.
It is indeed possible that the sedevacantist legal arguments for why the papal seat is empty might be true; but the legalistic solutions may nonetheless be ineffective or counter-productive in solving the Roman Catholic Church’s many and deep problems.
Hahahhahahah and here he reveals his true nature. Pay attention to what he says:
“Oh yes, X may be true, but we can’t have truth be used to solve anything!”
“No, no, truth is counter-productive to solving anything, you see?!”
What a disgusting creature. He probably has candle-lit dinners with Jordan Peterson, while they agree on truth being untruth.
That is, indeed, my opinion – I mean that the sedevacantist solutions (i.e. their advocated approach to dealing with the RC problems) are ineffective, and would be counter-productive: they are wrong in their spirit.
Firstly Brucie, no one, literally no one on Earth gives a flying crap about your opinion. You are absolutely irrelevant to everyone with the possible exception of your cat, if you have one. But even if some misguided soul cared anything for your opinion, let me assure you that not a single Catholic does. That is Sedevacantist or even just nominally ignorant lay Novus Order kind that is simply fooled by the impostors pretending to be Pope and Bishops and priests. Because you are NOT Catholic Bruce. You’re a Gnostic. You are the enemy. We really don’t consider you at all other than as I am doing now, to make an example of you for others to point and laugh at the tarring and feathering and ass-kicking you’re getting here metaphorically speaking.
Secondly, who on Earth would YOU be to judge what is or is not wrong “in the Spirit” whatever that new-age-gnostic phrase is supposed to mean. You silly, cowardly wormtongue, Brucie, go fret for your tuba hat and the Angel Moroni, go on, get out of here, you spiritually empty sack of lies.
And third, Sedevacantism is growing by leaps and bounds. Our Churches are literally bursting at the seams, with often standing room only, and guess what, it’s young people in them. People making children. LOTS of Children Brucie. I know, I know, a lifelong incel like you can’t understand, especially given the faggotry you speak, but believe me Brucie, Sedevacantism is booming.
Because I think it can be known in advance – from multiple experiences in multiple churches – that legal solutions will not have a good effect; that a re-set is impossible (and the attempt undesirable) because it will empower the wrong people and set faithful Catholics at each others throats…
Again, first, NOTHING can be known in advance, especially not by “people” to use the term loosely, like you.
Secondly there has never been any such thing as “multiple experiences in multiple churches” the way you mean it, because there is no such thing as “multiple churches”. There is ONE Church, Brucie, the ONE, True, Holy, and Apostolic CATHOLIC CHURCH.
It doesn’t matter if YOU believe in it or not. None of us care. It is an unchangeable Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, so there IS only one Church. The Catholic one. Obviously. And logically. Because unlike what “people” like you want to pretend, Brucie, there is only ONE truth. Can only BE one truth. Either Catholicism is true, in which case we are right, or it is not, in which case Christianity doesn’t exist. And again, it doesn’t matter if you and the rest of the world disagrees. We don’t care. We never have cared in two millennia. Catholicism IS Christianity and the ONLY Christians are Catholics.
Thirdly, there is absolutely nothing to “re-set”. The Catholic Church continues as it always did undisturbed. All that Vatican II did is expose all the fake Catholics, those too lazy to learn the facts, those too lazy to hold the line. And of course, the infiltrating Satanists. It’s fine, we’re fine. As I said, our Churches continue to grow and basic game theory makes it mathematically obvious that by being as we are, either eventually we win, or, it’s the end times and we win anyway too. Besides which, either way, the current goings on are all prophesied, so we really have nothing to worry about.
Lastly, faithful Catholics are never at each other’s throats. Stop making shit up. Catholics call out deceivers, gnostics, satanist, and liars like yourself, because it is the duty of every Catholic to do so, and we will always call your kind and Bergoglio’s and all the fake impostors out. But there is never any issue between faithful Catholics. Because we’re all one family. Of course, those genuinely deceived into thinking the Novus Ordo is the “real” Church are just fooled ignorants at best and very lazy ones in the worst cases, but all it takes is a little study and they will see the truth. And THAT is what you fear Brucie, which is why you keep attacking the Sedevacantists, unlike any other of the fake denominations you carry water for. Including the absurd Mormons with their insane idea that a sex pervert with a tuba hat with a “seer-stone” in it was the only one that could decipher the hidden scrolls from the Angel Moroni, and that those pronouncements created the Book of Mormon. That is who you publicly carry water for the most in fact. You’re such an obvious degenerate, infiltrating, miserable, sad little clown Brucie.
That this negative potential can be known in advance from experience, and legalism eschewed, even despite that (probably) nobody has yet proposed any other clearly promising and practical way of genuinely revitalizing the Roman Catholic Church in the West.
There is nothing to “revitalise” never has been. The Novus Orco is not Catholic, so you go ahead and “revitalise” it any gay way you want, Brucie. The actual Catholic Church and its practitioners will continue on as we always have and continue to grow our churches and communities and families.
For what little it is worth; I suspect that an answer might be found in the actual practice of Roman Catholicism at its Christian best; rather than in abstract theories about the matter.
Sedevacantism IS the practice of Catholicism, Brucie. So you have that as a pesky little spanner in your intended works of subversion. Because nothing else IS.
Something to do with the lives of ordinary Catholics (including ‘ordinary’ Saints); rather than the models and hypotheses of canon lawyers, theologians, philosophers, church bureaucrats or the like.
Look at the wormtongueing. It’s almost impressive. Here Brucie is trying to say that Catholic Canon Lawyers, Catholic Philosophers, Catholic Theologians and validly ordained Catholic Clergy (that’s what he means by bureaucrats) have the wrong model of Catholicism. The arrogance in even trying this trick is stunning. Incidentally exposing Brucie’s narcissistic streak in thinking he can get away with it.
It’s a sleight of hand of course, he’s pretending your average street crier with a megaphone is the equivalent of an actual Catholic priest. Or that your current day “philosopher”, who is unaware after 4 years of University that Logic is indispensable in philosophy, is somehow comparable to, say, Thomas Aquinas. It’s all implied you see, none of it spelt out, typical sophist language. Letting your own mind fill in the false “gaps” he implies without stating.
And ending off with that “humble” appeal to “just ordinary folks” don’t you see? Good old Marxist approach, eh Brucie? I’m starting to wonder if you may have been born in a synagogue, Brucie.
The problem you have Brucie, is that “ordinary Catholics” who are actually Catholic, are all, in the main, kinda like me. Really not susceptible to your lies. Because once you have seen the truth Brucie, you can’t be so easily fooled again. And the lies of your kind are failing more and more regularly and more and more people see you for the masked soul-robber you are.
Maybe the most luminous, rich, and inspiring aspects of the pre-Reformation Catholic ‘world’ – something rather like GK Chesterton’s imaginative pictures of “Merrie England” – could be found to contain clues toward the changes that are needed and would work and could grow; and also (and vital) what aspects ought to be de-emphasized…
You shameless vermin, someone should really slap your mouth for daring to mention good men like Tolkien or Chesterton in that whore’s hole you speak your nonsense out of. Chesterton and Tolkien were proper Catholics, which is why Tolkien made a point to LOUDLY protest the Novus Ordo fake Mass every single time he went to Church. He would have got on just fine with us other Catholics. i.e. Sedevacantists. Especially since he died in 1973, when the situation had hardly crystallised, since Vatican II ended at the end of 1965, and people were still trying to see if there was anything salvageable. De Laurier’s only published his thesis on Sedeprivationism in 1979, six years after Tolkien had already passed on. And Lefebvre opened his SSPX seminary only in 1970. Both of these in continental Europe, not England. So Brucie is also imagining things that are counter to likelihood by many orders of magnitude. I feel quite certain that had Tolkien been able to transported to today, he would almost without a doubt be a Sedevacantist.
Selected cuttings from that ancient tree of faithful living might be planted to yield new and different fruits, but recognizably derived from the same root stock.
And again, in the end, he gives himself away as the modernist deceiver he is.
No Brucie, Catholicism is not Protestantism. We don’t do “branches”.
Oh, and Brucie…? Every time you lift your head above the parapet to try and lob dirt on Catholicism, that is, the ONLY Catholicism left, Sedevacantism, I’ll be here.
The Complete Deceiver Stephen Fry
Stephen Fry, outright LIES about Thomas Moore, and pretty much everything else regarding the Catholic Church in this 20 minute presentation.
The adoring comments by historically illiterate people under the litany of nonsense this deviant spouts is nauseating.
Fry’s historical knowledge doesn’t even rise to Wikipedia level of understanding. And we can hardly assume such an “erudite and intelligent” “man” (excuse me while I laugh out loud) is ignorant of these facts, can we.
So we MUST assume intentional deception.
Fry, at minute 7 and some 20 seconds begins with this outrageous lie:
“…just imagine in this square mile, how many people were burned, for reading the Bible in English. And one of the principal burners and torturers of those who tried to read the Bible in English, here in London, was Thomas Moore.”
and here is the relevant part of the wikipedia entry, which, as I say, is hardly a defender of the Catholic faith.
Controversy on Extent of Prosecution of Heretics
There is considerable variation in opinion on the extent and nature of More’s prosecution of heretics: witness in recent popular media the difference in portrayals of More in A Man for All Seasons and in Wolf Hall. The English establishment initially regarded Protestants (and Anabaptists) as akin to the Lollards and Hussites whose heresies fed their sedition.[note 5] Ambassador to Charles V Cuthbert Tunstall called Lutheranism the “foster-child” of the Wycliffite heresy[66] that had underpinned Lollardy.
Historian Richard Rex wrote:[49]: 106
Torture allegations
Torture was not officially legal in England, except in pre-trial discovery phase[67]: 62 of kinds of extreme cases that the King had allowed, such as seditious heresy. It was regarded as unsafe for evidence, and was not an allowed punishment.
Stories emerged in More’s lifetime regarding persecution of the Protestant “heretics” during his time as Lord Chancellor, and he denied them in detail in his Apologia (1533).
Many stories were later published by the popular sixteenth-century English Protestant historian John Foxe in his polemical Book of Martyrs. Foxe was instrumental in publicizing accusations of torture, alleging that More had often personally used violence or torture while interrogating heretics.[68] Later Protestant authors such as Brian Moynahan and Michael Farris cite Foxe when repeating these allegations.[69] Biographer Peter Ackroyd also lists claims from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and other post-Reformation sources that More “tied heretics to a tree in his Chelsea garden and whipped them”, that “he watched as ‘newe men’ were put upon the rack in the Tower and tortured until they confessed”, and that “he was personally responsible for the burning of several of the ‘brethren’ in Smithfield.”[20]: 305
Historian John Guy commented that “such charges are unsupported by independent proof.”[note 7] Modern historian Diarmaid MacCulloch finds no evidence that he was directly involved in torture.[note 8] Richard Marius records a similar claim, which tells about James Bainham, and writes that “the story Foxe told of Bainham’s whipping and racking at More’s hands is universally doubted today”.[note 9]
More himself denied these allegations:
More instead claimed in his “Apology” (1533) that he only applied corporal punishment to two “heretics”: a child servant in his household who was caned (the customary punishment for children at that time) for repeating a heresy regarding the Eucharist, and a “feeble-minded” man who was whipped for disrupting the mass by raising women’s skirts over their heads at the moment of consecration, More taking the action to prevent a lynching.[70]: 404
Execution allegations
Burning at the stake was the standard punishment by the English state for obstinate or relapsed, major seditious or proselytizing heresy, and continued to be used by both Catholics and Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades.[71] In England, following the Lollard uprisings, heresy had been linked to sedition (see De heretico comburendo and Suppression of Heresy Act 1414.)
Ackroyd states that More zealously “approved of burning”.[20]: 298 Novelist Richard Marius maintained that in office More did everything in his power to bring about the extermination of Protestants.[72]
During More’s chancellorship, six people were burned at the stake for heresy, the same rate as under Wolsey: they were Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham.[20]: 299–306 However, the court of the Star Chamber, which More was the presiding judge of, as Lord Chancellor, could not impose the death sentence: it was a kind of appellate supreme court.[73]: 263
More took a personal interest in the three London cases:[49]: 105
Moynahan alleges that More influenced the eventual execution of William Tyndale in the Duchy of Brabant, as English agents had long pursued Tyndale.[75] This was despite the fact that the execution took place on October 6, 1536, several years after More had resigned as Chancellor and been executed, as well as in a totally different country. A historian has called this “bizarre”.[49]: 93
Go on and read the whole entry, by ALL accounts, Moore was a very fair man, as mentioned, going on to whip a man to save him from a lynching. He was a loving and devoted father and step-father and he promoted the education of women more than anyone else had ever done at the time.
Everything else Fry mentions is very much as with this one historical character assassination based on nothing but outrageous lies and his own deviant nature, rebelling at the fact that Christianity has always known that his specific sexual deviancy, leads to nothing good, since it is, in a very obvious and fundamental level, simply unnatural. The human species would literally die out after 45 years if everyone on Earth decided to become a homosexual. And that’s without even mentioning a litany of other problems that lifestyle creates for both those who practice it, as well as those it is inflicted upon by sexual violence when they are children.
And to be clear, I see homosexuality as an unfortunate deviancy if it is there from birth (which it is in a MINORITY of cases, as evidenced by science done over 30 years ago, which was widely reported at the time even in scientific American and such publications but that has been memory holed since), much like one might be born with six fingers, or without legs.
And a sexual deviancy for those that progressed into it consciously and gradually, and a case of particularly vicious trauma for those that end up there as a result of sexual abuse and/or rape. There are known cases where men who are repeatedly raped for years in jail, who absolutely were not homosexual when they went in, come out and are unable to perform sexually with women any more. But such things are not talked about. And lest Stephen Fry accuse me of wanting to burn homosexuals at the stake, let me be absolutely clear that I personally do not care at all if someone choses to be a homosexual, as long as he doesn’t try to tell everyone, or anyone, else that it is a normal and natural thing to do. It is not. Math is also not racist and men cannot become women or vice-versa. And night follows day and water is wet. I also would like it that those people who chose to stop being homosexual and decide to heal whatever ails them, are allowed to do so without persecution, which, unfortunately, the LGBT lobby does.
And let’s not forget, in case, you are unaware, or assume I am simply “casting wild aspersions” that Stephen Fry has certain “predilections” shall we call them? And as the images below would seem to indicate, has had them for years. He also regularly comes up with rather odd things to say.
Cohen, (above) incidentally, was dumped at age 40 for a 26 year old, when Fry was 54 and supposedly offered Cohen a bunch of money from the sale of a house Fry owned in exchanged for signing an NDA.
Who is Steven Webb, which it is reported Fry introduced as his new partner? he’s the guy in the image below.
And who did Fry get engaged to after Webb?
And they went on to get “married” too.
Make up your own mind, but —unlike his accusations against Thomas Moore, which are completely false— there is certainly nothing untrue about what I have linked to here.
What that says about Fry in the specific, I will leave for the reader to decide. I will however, point out that this is just one point of his 20 minute rant, and the other 19 minutes or so could all be gone into similar level of detail.
This exercise is one worth doing if you care to, because it will once and for all demonstrate to you, the precise way in which people like Fry intentionally and expertly, twist, manipulate and pervert facts, in order to present a totally false narrative. Once you have seen the breath-taking facility with which they lie and misrepresent, obfuscate, and pervert facts, you will become a lot more immune to their lies. Which can only be a healthy thing.
If you want to really delve, deep, I do identify the 11 things that deceivers do in my book, Reclaiming the Catholic Church. They only have those 11 modus operandi, nor is it limited to religious lying, it applies in any context in life where they are trying to gaslight you into some false belief based on lies, and once you have seen each one of those methods, the world will suddenly make a lot more sense.
Once you see things as they really are, it might be a bit grimmer, but you can’t fix anything if you’re not even aware what the problem is. And the main problem in this world is liars and deceivers like Fry, and the people in power who make him look like a good choir boy.
No related posts.
By G | 25 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Freemasons, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within