The Retardation of Protestantism

Christianity is the answer, it always was, but most "Christians" are just Churchians

A recent long thread on Vox Day’s Social Galactic demonstrated in real time, one of my personal heroes of science —Professor Carlo Cipolla— was absolutely correct when he stated that:

The first basic law of human stupidity asserts without ambiguity that:

Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

At first, the statement sounds trivial, vague and horribly ungenerous. Closer scrutiny will however reveal its realistic veracity. No matter how high are one's estimates of human stupidity, one is repeatedly and recurrently startled by the fact that:

a) people whom one had once judged rational and intelligent turn out to be unashamedly stupid.

b) day after day, with unceasing monotony, one is harassed in one's activities by stupid individuals who appear suddenly and unexpectedly in the most inconvenient places and at the most improbable moments.

Both condition a) and b) were amply fulfilled on this thread. This will be an autist level length post with the vain hope of showing (the few people who can read for longer than 10 minutes without losing their place or straining their finger and drooling) the insanity of protestantism for the Nth time.

By the end of this you will see Protestants denying any rules at all, including probably baptism are required for salvation.

Don’t believe me? Read on. The Protestants will be in bold, I will be in mild standard text, others in Italics.

***

The display of completely absent logic, reasoning, or even just basic common sense was astonishing. The emoting and appeals to nothing other than people’s own egos when confronted with objective facts was truly stunning.

As SG recently added a rule that informally was originally going to be labelled as “The Kurgan Rule” to, erhm, curb yours truly from exposing people’s stupidity to the entire world, (as I did regularly on my currently off-line blog)¹ this post will, as per the rule, leave the people in question’s identifiers anonymous. But to give a sense of the level of absolute idiocy presented, I will reproduce a few of the types of things seen when it started out well-enough, with this comment, which clearly was inflammatory:

You get Catholicism or you get Satanic Athiests

To which appeared a superficially reasonable response by a Protestant was made:

I wouldn’t be too confident about that. The Orthodox Church is looking a lot healthier than the Roman Catholic Church at the moment.

Just fight the satanics no matter what they call themselves. It’s no harder for them to call themselves “Catholics” than anything else.

After all, the Novus Orco “clergy” are indeed Satanists, Freemasons, Pedophiles, and none of them are even Catholic, never mind valid clergy. As for the fooled laypeople that are Novus Ordo, or the occasional genuine Novus Orco “priest” that really thinks the Vatican II sect is actually Catholic, they are simply fooled ignorants, guilty of sloth for not actually educating themselves about Catholicism, their professed religion, supposedly.

But nominally, such people are considered actual Catholics. In error, certainly, but at least until they read about Sedevacantism and then ignore it, not necessarily one attributable to them. If they have read this far though, and don’t bother to read up on what Sedevacantism is, and why we have not had a valid Pope since 1958, or why Vatican II is complete heresy, they then are guilty of the sin of sloth.

As I said in the thread, you may THINK you are a Catholic, but if you have no idea what the basic tenets of Catholicism are, and were always, before 1958; if you have no idea what the Code of Canon Law of 1917 is, or why it is of paramount importance; if you have never read the 16 Vatican II documents and compared them with Catholic dogma and understood why 15 of those 16 documents are replete with heresy; then, I ask: how can you actually consider yourself Catholic?

It would be as if I, armed with a cyclist’s shoes and a golfer’s club, wandered onto a basketball court and pretended to be called an NBA player. Without having a single clue as to what the rules of basketball are. Yes, I may have been fooled. Yes, someone perhaps told me that was the correct attire for being an NBA player and all I had to do was show up at court, but am I not responsible for educating myself too? And certainly after someone points out the errors?

This is why I wrote Believe and Reclaiming the Catholic Church and why now hundreds of people have converted, or returned to real Catholicism. The same Catholicism that launched the Crusades and protected Christendom at the siege of Malta with feats of heroism that have remained unmatched for close to a thousand years.

So, ok, fair enough, the average person probably thinks Bergolgio and his Satanic Imps are what “Catholicism” is, even if almost anyone on SG knows better by now, given the barrage of Sedevacantist truth that has been revealed in that place.

The thread then had this comment:

And structures and hierarchies are subverted. Look, it’s not an accident that dogmatic Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and atheists all behave in a similar matter. You’re all binary thinkers who put too much faith into human dogma, which is why you all keep making the same type of mistakes over and over again over the course of the centuries.

This is why the Bible talks about the importance of the Holy Spirit and listening to “the still, small voice” rather than “obey the law perfectly or else”. There are many excellent aspects to Roman Catholicism. I have a high regard for it. But it is still a human institution run by men with many rules invented by men, and therefore, like everything else on this planet, fallible and susceptible to subversion.

to which I replied with:

And this is the first time I have a quote from [REDACTED] I can wholly disagree with. With some corollaries.

1. what 99% of people think is the Catholic Church is no such thing. It is a hive of Satanic impostors and has been ruled by same since 1958. The devil, as they say is in the details, and most people, and especially Protestants, have been so utterly dumbed down in matters of history, doctrine and so on that getting them to pay attention for 10 minutes is too hard, never mind them actually looking into it and understanding what a Sedevacantist Catholic is (i.e. an actual Catholic). [REDACTED] gets irritated when people don’t understand what “progeny” means in the US constitution, and that’s even simpler to grasp than basic Catholic dogma (though not by much). So I relate.

2. I believe he understands the difference

3. but I think he writes for the masses.

Continuing from the comment above… the disagreement is that I absolutely believe the Catholic Church (now found only in Sedevacantist clergy and laypeople) was not created by men at all, but by Christ. And its dogmatic principles, are infallible because of it. The fact that:

1. Again, people are mostly idiots and so are incapable of following, reading and understanding the subtleties of Catholic dogma, so they reduce it, simplify it and corrupt it endlessly (which by the way is why and how Protestantism took such a hold, it is a ridiculous oversimplification of the Catholic reality it spawned from in horribly mutated form).

2. Church dogma is divided between unchanging divine laws and mutable human ones.

3. The Satanist that are impersonating the clergy of the Catholic Church intentionally lie, corrupt, and twist everything, and have done so for 250 years in a concentrated effort to destroy the Church.

4. Bad men exist and always will in even the real Church.

in no way invalidates Church infallibility.

You do, of course, need to SEEK. And more than just a little bit perfunctorily. And we all know reading is hard and logic burns the brains and basic comprehension is like violence to the weak, and so on and on. But just like your average peasant 300 years ago, or your average knight 500 years ago was a man that would do things that would break most men today after a week, the same degradation of thinking, logic, faith and cogent thought has occurred. So the present state of affairs is as it is. Reminiscent of the Radioactive Wastelands of the Cursed Earth of 2000 AD comics.

Lastly, of course, the fake “Catholic Church” known as Novus Ordo (Orco by me) is an absolutely Satanic thing which is why I wrote Reclaiming the Catholic Church. And it comes as no surprise they traffic in children, refugees, and whatever other thing Satanists get up to. But, properly speaking they are not Catholic at all.
Just as if I call you a cannibal pigmy and then accuse you of doing the things evil cannibal pigmies do, you are no more at fault than I am for you thinking I am a Novus Orco “Catholic”.

And by now, I think almost everyone on SG knows the divergence between an actual Catholic (Sede) and a Satanist wearing a Popehat.

Yes it was a wall of text, but I always try to ensure I am not leaving out too many dots to connect, as I often do this without meaning to, as many things I find obvious appear to be opaque to many.

Anyway, my wall of text was responded to thusly:

“Actual Catholicism is not anything like what you have been taught to think it is.”
Neither is true Protestantism.

To which I replied:

pity is no one ever will know what “true Protestantism” is. Because it’s whatever each individual wants it to be. The Dogma and rules of catholicism on the other hand have all been written down for 2000 years and then also compiled and encoded in one document. No other religion can say that. And no other religion can claim those rules not only work, but have worked every time they were followed, for 2 millennia.

And now the retardation began, and soon it grew to an avalanche.

Every religion thinks it has real wisdom cornered. Instead, Christ asked us to treat all those who believe in Him as brothers. Since no man can see into another’s heart, He created that test and boundary. Belief in Him. It’s not complicated.

Which had to be trolled with dialectic objectivity of inescapable quality by me:

two questions:

1. Do demons believe in Jesus Christ being…uh..you know…Jesus Christ?

2. See a problem with your statement yet?

the response from the person who said it wasn’t complicated? Pure retardation of distilled quality:

Absolutely not. Demons NEVER willingly admit they believe in Christ until they are cornered & outed as the enemy. Thank you for asking that question!

Astonishing stupidity, straw-manning and false humility in two short sentences. Who said women can’t multi-task?

The point of course is not whether demons ADMIT it, but rather whether they believe it and know it. To which the answer, of course, is a resounding yes. Which once again proves beyond a doubt that Protestants have the exact same standard to be a Christian as Demons do. Demons believe Christ is in fact who He says He is. If that were enough to bring you to Heaven, then Demons would be in Heaven too. And yes, this isn’t complicated. Not even for a child. But it is apparently way beyond a Protestant’s capacity to do basic logic.

Then a few attempts at reason by more reasonable people:

One thing I’ve not quite understood about Protestantism…
Many claim that the rules of Catholicism are complicated.

But you believe that The Bible… the densest and most significant work in creation with multiple layers of inter-related meaning, inspired by the words of God Himself, originally written in multiple ancient languages, can be picked-up by the average person, and without any authority to help you interpret it, has a meaning which is pretty straight-forward for the average person to pickup and understand?

And another:

Institutions of men are fallible in the sense that they are subject to corruption and confusion, but not that they are necessarily corrupt or confused.

The retard chimes back in:

Perhaps your concept of God is too small. He wrote it for everybody. That being said, every Christian church has leaders and experts to go to for help and clarification. Both points co-exist: Bible is for everybody, experts r welcome.

And so she then gets promptly and politely owned.

But here is the obvious problem… it demonstrably isn’t written in such a way that everyone will reach the same, essential conclusions about it. That’s why you can take “experts” from dozens of different Protestant denominations - people who have done a truly impressive level of study - and these various people will give not only different, but truly incompatible versions of what the Bible really means and how we should truly be good Christians.

I suppose for a Protestant this answer may seem crude, but to us Catholics when the question has been: “what is the simple criteria”? The answer has always been: look for the Church of Christ and following the teaching of the authorities that He established.

Rejoining with my earlier comment, I get accused of doing something I absolutely did not do, using my own quote, which note, has air-quotes on it for all to see:

no one ever will know what “true Protestantism” is.

That’s because there is no such thing. We know what a Methodist is. We know what a Baptist is. But all you’re offering there is meaningless rhetoric.

“No one will ever know what a true animal is, because a tiger is different than a duck.”

And of course I replied to that:

I didn’t come up with the meaningless phrase “true Protestantism”. [RETARDED PROTESTANT] did. Which is why I put it in inverted commas. I’m not the one coming up with meaningless rhetoric. Protestants are.
The point being that between the 40,000 denominations there is no agreement whatever as to what a “christian” even is.
There are about 800 million Protestants and as many versions of “Christianity” from them, which logically means their religion (whichever of the 800 million versions you pick) simply cannot be the salvific version of anything. If it were then everyone gets saved, which from an actual Christian perspective (or even just basic justice) is nonsensical.
Fake Catholicism is just as bad of course.
Actual Catholicism and actual Catholics on the other hand have a very clear, simple enough to follow religion with very clear rules that have consistently made life better for any society that adopted them.

Which ended that little side-thread apparently, but here are some others that went from mild to truly astonishing:

“if you don’t know what the code of Canon Law of 1917 is, if you have never read the 16 documents of Vatican II and if you don’t know why these two things matter, along with some basic tenets of your purported faith, then why do you think you actually ARE Catholic?”

Christianity is not knowing the details of the Law. Neither the thief on the cross nor the Ethiopian knew any of those things, and I doubt very much that Jesus will deny either of them.

I understand the sentiment. The basic premise being that it is obviously not necessary to read the entirety of the Code of Canon Law to be a decent Catholic. Which is true. But that is the case as long as you accept the infallible magisterium of the church.²

If you do not, or if you want to understand WHY the Church has this or that rule, then there is certainly enough information and logic and reason, based on Roman Law, the most complete, fair and just system of laws for humans ever devised,³ for you to research it to your heart’s content. This would require reading the Bible, or also the Code of canon Law of 1917 or even the references in it that lead directly to one or more of the documents or papal encyclicals that the Catholic Church has archived as part of the infallible magisterium of the Church.

In short, if you accept the rules, fine, just do as you are told by a decent priest or bishop and you don’t even have to know how to read. Knowing the Credo, Ave Maria, Our Father, maybe the Gloria, and attending the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Mass, Confession, Confirmation, Marriage, last rites, and Holy Orders where relevant, is all that millions and millions of illiterate peasants throughout the ages required, and they formed perfectly decent societies.

As for the comment on the thief on the Cross and the Ethiopian, again, Catholicism has detailed reasons for this. Because once again: Reason and logic. The Thief on the Cross going to heaven without having been baptised is accepted under the concept of baptism by desire, which is that exceedingly rare occasion whereby a person who truly did want to become catholic, dies before having the chance to be baptised. not because he stopped for a beer or a week on holiday to suntan, but because he literally dies before he gets to it. Catholics understand that there is an external appearance to things and an internal intent, of which only God knows the truth. And the thief on the cross, because Jesus explicitly said so, is proof that the internal forum, if truly earnest and true, can make one achieve salvation. And the Ethiopian of course actually received instruction by Phillip before choosing to be baptised, so not even really applicable. The point remains the same: It’s not necessary to be a doctor of the Church to be a good Catholic.

But to go from this to saying that no rules at all are required for salvation, is, of course, idiotic.

And yet… as we will see… prevalent among protestants. Behold:

“These disagreements range from the nature of Christ Himself, to the rules for attaining or losing salvation, to the exact nature and cure for sin, to how we as Christians should regard ourselves as a community.”

None of those things are essentials. Either Jesus will deny you on the day or he will not. That’s the only essential.

It’s a silly sentence.

It’s like saying: Whether you follow the rules of the road or not is not essential. On the day you will either get a fine or not.

Duh.

And what, pray tell, might get you fined? Oh, oh, I know! How about NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES?

This is really not difficult.

Well. Unless you’re a Protestant apparently. The Catholic interlocutor replied:

but will all due respect, that wasn’t my argument. I didn’t make an appeal to the need for everyone to be right about everything.

The argument is that there is demonstrable and consistent disagreement about the essentials. You have claimed that the list of doctrines I gave are non-essential, but whether they are essential parts of belief or not is itself therefore something that Christians disagree about.

You then claimed, “Either Jesus will deny you on the day or he will not. That’s the only essential.”, but is it not essential for us to know what we need to believe or do so that He will accept us?

For example, with the exception of cases in which it is genuinely impossible, is it necessary for a Christian to receive water baptism?

The astonishing response from a different but very retarded Protestant?

“but is it not essential for us to know what we need to believe or do so that He will accept us?”
Answer: NOPE.

So, we have final proof here that Protestants literally believe that all you need to do to be saved is:

1. Believe in Jesus Christ (demons do so as well)

2. Do whatever you want. No rules at all need be followed, known or understood. (Again, do as thou will shall be all of the law. Satanic.)

And more:

“You then claimed, “Either Jesus will deny you on the day or he will not. That’s the only essential.”, but is it not essential for us to know what we need to believe or do so that He will accept us?

Obviously not. The Bible specifically states that many who believe they were Christians who did what they were told will be rejected. Matthew 7:22-23.

Let’s look at Matthew 7:22-23 shall we?

²² Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

²³ And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Apparently, Protestants are too dense to even imagine this may apply precisely to them. Because you know… they profess to be Christians, but don’t actually follow any of the rules of it?

Such an astonishing display of complete lack of reasoning capacity can only mean that either:

1. Protestants are genuinely so brainwashed, or stupid and arrogant as to believe literally no rules need apply to them other than to have the same level of “belief” as demons do, or,

2. They are like Muslims, and believe Allah will do whatever he will do, for reasons completely unfathomable to anyone but himself, and he will condemn/save who he will, for totally inscrutable reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with your behaviour on Earth at all.

Either way it a pretty bold move to assert that no rules at all apply to your membership for Christianity, not to say, so retarded as to actually stun you for a moment with the abject stupidity of it.

I truly wonder what possible reason Protestants think may apply to those who Jesus rejects, if not their simply not doing as per his Will in order to be saved.

Which, you know, might include just a little bit more than saying “I believe Jesus is Jesus”.

Is baptism even required to be a Christian, according to Protestants?

For example, with the exception of cases in which it is genuinely impossible, is it necessary for a Christian to receive water baptism?

I doubt it. But I don’t pretend to actually know.

Apparently not! Although he does admit he is not 100% sure.

Appeals to the Bible (you know, their sola scripture that they changed and never put together to begin with?) were ignored:

As far as water baptism goes, it’s commanded by Christ, St. Peter, Phillip, and the whole Early Church. Simple.

Once again, selectively quoting of a random Bible verse that may as well read: Protestants will be rejected, is used as “proof” that no rules are required for salvation, but quotes that specifically state baptism is required only get a “probably not actually required” comment.

Protestantism: Perhaps the best proof of professor Cipolla’s First Law of Human Stupidity (and the other four too) you can find anywhere.

***

So that’s what level of reason and logic we may have to work with when helping any Protestant see some basic facts and logic. It’s a pretty tiny sliver of a hint, of a shadow of a gap, by which one might, with enormous luck or divine Grace, begin to try and shine some light, or basic common sense into the gap. It’s possible because I personally know various protestants that have (after many such lengthy threads on various social media or discussions in person, or reading one of my books) come round and declared themselves properly Catholic.

One such quite touching and awesome example is by this gentleman, who if anyone had hurdles to conversion, he definitely had, his Protestant Pastor father having been killed by militant Muslims before he was born. And yet, guided by logic, reason and divine Grace, he has made the shift.

I told you this was gonna be long, but I hope it was at least entertaining, and with a bit of Divine Grace, who knows, maybe even helpful.

1. Don’t worry, it will return in some weeks. But this will be home for the present. So spread the words to your friends and forward the posts please.

2. Protestants don’t understand Church infallibility and confuse it regularly with thinking Catholics mean that the Pope or every priest is infallible. Which is 100% wrong. Catholicism had gay Popes, violent Popes, probably pederast Popes too, all men are fallible. BUT, God is not. And Christ is God. And Christ promised he would be with the Church until the End of Days. Which means that the Church itself, in its official declarations, despite all the human flaws and flawed humans that make it up, is somehow, must be, supernaturally protected from error by Christ Himself. After all a fallible Church, or a cacophony of nonsense is Satanic, not Divine, so this MUST be the case, and we have 2,000 years of evidence to support this. The Church has been infiltrated, attacked, run by greedy powermongers and everything else for 2 millennia, yet, the basic dogmatic principles of the Church have remained the same the entire time. And even when things like the Arian heresy took over 99% of the Church, somehow, miraculously, the truth always won out. So we have not had a valid Pope for nearly 70 years. So what? There have been periods with literally NO ONE on the throne for over 2 years. There have been over 40 fake popes before 1958. And the Church was a tiny bunch of scared guys hiding in Catacombs for the first few hundred years of its existence. The Bible itself was put together by Catholics who already had Popes and the Hoy Mass with transubstantiation a few hundred years after Christ ascended. And yet the real Church survived it all and it will continue to do so. Whether this is the End times or just another bad patch like the Arian heresy was, makes no difference. Real Catholicism today is only found in the Sedevacantist totalist position that the last valid pope to date was Pope Pius XII and the rules of the Church are contained in the extraordinary document known as the Pio_Bendictine Code of Canon Law of 1917, which reviewed tens of thousands of documents in order to compile a codified set of rules from ALL the Papal encyclicals and ex-cathedra (infallible) pronouncements. The CoCL of 1917 is basically a document that summarises alla of Catholic Dogma, with not a single contradiction or erro in over 2,000 years of rulings. If that is not supernatural I don’t know what is. It represents the magisterium of the Church and is in fact infallible, just like the Catholic Bible. Anything related to Vatican II on the other hand is pure Satanic lies and heresy and to be wholly and fully rejected, as per the infallible ex-Cathedra pronouncement of Pope Paul the IV in Cum-Ex Apostolato Officio, referred to in the CoCl of 1917 as per Code 188 part 4.

3. Roman Law acts on the basis of a principle being broadly accepted but the details of each event being relevant and important to the final judgement. Unlike Anglo-Saxon law, which makes precedent cases relevant to current cases even where the details are vastly different.