william burke vs ryan b : debate against a radical schismatic

8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/william-burke-vs-ryan-b-debate-against-a-radical-schismatic 1/47

William Burke vs Ryan B.

Preface: The following exchange is between William Burke, christiantruth, and Ryan B.,

sedevacantist11. Prior to Ryan messaging me I was not familiar with him. He messaged me and

challenged me to a debate on the issue of receiving the sacraments from heretics during the

great apostasy. This issue is related to the “no jurisdiction position”. Some schismatics wronglybelieve that a heretical priest can never receive jurisdiction in order to absolve sins. Now this is

important because jurisdiction is required for a valid confession. The correct position is that a

heretical priest can get jurisdiction to absolve sins in cases of necessity. The following debate is

very interesting and it is clear that Ryan was crushed and refuted out of his own mouth.

Below is the full debate I only removed the links to heretical websites that Ryan sent me and the

names of some people who are irrelevant to the debate. The typos are not corrected.

I added commentary. Commentary is denoted like this [William’s note: ….]

Some names and links were removed they are noted like this [...]

Emphasis was not added later, if you see things capitalized, underlined, colored etc. that was

there in the original message.

[Ryan’s first message 11/2/13]

Hi christiantruth, I just wanted to let you know that MHFM is wrong on the sacraments debate,

and I can give you all proof that they are? I've debated with many obstinate MHFM followers andthey all have blocked me and won't respond to things I say, but instead spew insults. If you too

block me right away, that would show badwill. Sorry, not accusing you or anything, it's just I have

to say this since many block right away without actually letting me say anything. I can show you

topic by topic on how MHFM is wrong on this subject, I could start with the St. Thomas Aquinas

part of the debate first if you like?

P.S. I don't believe in bod/bob etc. I believe the same things as MHFM except for the sacraments

from heretics issue.

- Ryan

___

[William responds 11/2/13]

[William’s note: I took out the name of the other radical schismatic that contacted me because it

is irrelevant]



Oh look another radical schismatic. [mik...] could not respond to my counter points lets see how

you do. Give me your best argument.

___

[Ryan responds 11/3/13]

Ha "radical schismatic" where'd you come up with that? Oh wait, MHFM of course.

As for my best argument, I have tons of great arguments that refute them, but I lemme see.. I'll

start with this argument.

Peter Dimond, "Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics" Debate -- The Important Quotes: "Now,

notice that in the quote above St. Thomas says that a person who communicates in the

sacraments with a heretic "who is cut off" from the Church necessarily sins. Remember, those

who have been "cut off" are those who have been officially pronounced against. There is nodoubt, therefore, that he is teaching that the absolute obligation not to communicate in the

sacraments with a heretic applies to heretics who have been declared against: those who have

been officially "cut off.""

Peter is completely wrong when he claims that this necessarily refers to "those who have been

officially pronounced against." Peter doesn't seem to understand (or does not want to

understand, since it contradicts his position) that the words "cut off" simply has two meanings 1)

an automatic excommunication; or 2) a declared excommunication — and that St. Thomas (or

anyone else) could have been referring to either of these.

For proof of this, I'll quote Pope Leo XIII:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled from

the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. ... St.

Augustine notes that 'other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give

his assent, he is by the VERY FACT CUT OFF from Catholic unity... if any one holds to one

single one of these [heresies] he is not a Catholic' (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)."

So Pope Leo XIII, who was quoting from St. Augustine, just referred to the term "cut off" as an

automatic excommunication: "St. Augustine notes that 'other heresies may spring up, to a single

one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity".

This buries Peter's argument, that the term "cut off" necessarily means a formal

excommunication. Remember this, for many quotes that condemns being in religious

communion with excommunicated persons simply use the words "cut off" or "excommunication"

in order to denote their automatic excommunication.



I chose this as the first argument since it's pretty much the foundation of you and Peter's false

position, you can attempt to "refute" this argument, and then we'll go onto the next etc. you can

also bring up the next argument if you want.

[William’s note: I found this argument annoying. Ryan is trying to quote Peter Dimond. Then

interpret Peter Dimond’s position (he misinterprets Peter’s position which I cover in a differentnote). Then say that I agree with Ryan’s interpretation of Peter Dimond’s position. Then attack

Peter Dimond in an attempt to get an emotional response out of me. Then, if his tactic worked,

when I defend Peter Dimond Ryan would say that I just blindly follow Peter Dimond. I was not

going to fall for this. Also Ryan has yet to explain what exactly his positions are regarding

jurisdiction and why he believes what he believes. I was not going to let Ryan hide his positions. I

was going to make him explain what he believes early on so I could catch him in clear

contradictions.]

- Ryan

____ [William responds 11/3/13]

You are not debating Peter Dimond. Make your opening argument. That means you explain

where Catholic teaching, according to you, says one cannot ever get sacraments from heretics.

Then quote your source.

You just quoted Peter Dimond quoting Aquinas but you do not tell me what Aquinas quote Peter

is using. You basically assume I have memorized Peters debate, then started in the middle of

his debate and did a counter point to one of his points. I will take your points you made here into

account but lets start at the beginning. I will let you make your opening argument first.

____


Everything that I'm going to be bringing forth proves that you can't receive sacraments from

heretics, including this topic, but as to your question as to what quote Peter Dimond was

quoting, it was this one:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, A.2: "I answer that, on this

question four opinions are mentioned in the text (Sent. iv, D, 25). For some said that heretics, so

long as they are tolerated by the Church, retain the power to ordain, but not after they have been

cut off from the Church; as neither do those who have been degraded and the like. This is the

first opinion. Yet this is impossible, because, happen what may, no power that is given with a

consecration can be taken away so long as the thing itself remains, any more than the

consecration itself can be annulled, for even an altar or chrism once consecrated remains

consecrated for ever. Wherefore, since the episcopal power is conferred by consecration, it

must needs endure for ever, however much a man may sin or be cut off from the Church....



Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and

the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first

effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect which is the

conferring of grace. This is the second opinion. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very

fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the

Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace,except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the

sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in

efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons

despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion."

Peter lists other sources with the term "cut off" also and says that it means formally pronounced

against to avoid a heretic, but I just proved in the last message that it doesn't ONLY mean

formally pronounced against, the term "cut off" also can mean an automatic excommunication.

He's also completely wrong on St. Thomas Aquinas, but we'll save that topic for later in thedebate. Essentially the whole "cut off" argument is the root of you guys' position, and literally is

the foundation, after that's refuted it all starts to come down, but we will continue.

[William’s note: In the debate we got away from this point and I never gave my response, so I will

give it now. In Ryan’s message he indicates that the term “cut off” could, in some instances, be

referring to only a formal excommunication, “it doesn't ONLY mean formally pronounced against,

the term "cut off" also can mean an automatic excommunication.” Well if something also can

mean something else that means it does not always mean that something else. Sometimes “cut

off” is taken in this sense other times it is taken in a different sense. Secondly Ryan in an earlier

email misrepresents what Brother Peter Dimond said. In an earlier message Ryan said, “Thisburies Peter's argument, that the term "cut off" necessarily means a formal

excommunication.” That is not Peter Dimond’s position. Peter Dimond is saying that the term

“cut off” can mean a someone being formally pronounced against. Peter Dimond is also saying

that in certain instances “cut off” is only referring to people with a formal pronouncement. Peter

Dimond is saying that in this instance when St. Thomas is saying “cut off” in this instance St.

Thomas means a formal pronouncement. To further prove that Peter Dimond’s point that “cut

off” has to meanings and that sometimes it means a formal pronouncement I will quote Peter

Dimond from his article titled ‘sacraments from undeclared heretics debate’ , “Even though

Elizabeth was already an obvious heretic who was cut off in reality from the Church, she is not legally

considered “cut off” until the Church’s declaration”. Peter Dimond himself used the term “cut off” in

two senses. So it is not true to say that Peter Dimond’s position is that “cut off” necessarily

means formal pronouncement. So Ryan’s whole argument is just a straw man that

misrepresents what Peter Dimond actually believes.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/sacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_deba

te.php ]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mostholyfamilymonastery.com%2FArticles%2Fsacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_debate.php&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEo8ZNnWJ9WrPrKVuM-AFaNw6Bi6A

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mostholyfamilymonastery.com%2FArticles%2Fsacraments_from_undeclared_heretics_debate.php&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEo8ZNnWJ9WrPrKVuM-AFaNw6Bi6A



- Ryan

_____________

[William Responds 11/4/13]

Let me try and explain where I am coming from. I have no idea about the precise nature of your

position. You have not explained it and you don't link to any paper you wrote explaining your

positions. So when you initially explain your positions I am probably going to have a few

questions so I can really understand what your position is.

Also stop setting up a straw man and knocking it down. you say this, "Essentially the whole "cut

off" argument is the root of you guys' position, and literally is the foundation, after that's refuted it

all starts to come down...". I literally have not made one argument yet but you have already said

what the foundation of my argument is and have claimed to have refuted it...

But it was nice that you cited the Saint Thomas quote.

So lets move on.

___________________


[William’s note: Notice how he gets mad at me for trying to understand his position. Also notice

what he claims his position is, “My position is that we cannot receive sacraments from heretics.

Period.” He later apologized for misrepresenting himself.]

I've already told you my position, I actually explained it in the first message, and the second, but

I'll explain it again. My position is that we cannot receive sacraments from heretics. Period.

You told me to make my opening argument. I have done just that. You do hold the same position

as MHFM on the sacraments debate, correct? You already called me a "radical schismatic" so

obviously you do hold the same position as them. I explained how the "cut off" argument is the

foundation of your position because it is. When MHFM explains how "we can receive sacraments

from heretics" that exact argument is the one that holds the whole thing up, and since you've

already insulted me, and you have MHFM on your channel I figured you hold the same positions

as them on the topic? Or do you not? Now I have questions to ask.

The reason why I chose the "cut off" argument as my opening argument is because according to

you and MHFM's position, you can go to "undeclared heretics" since they need to be "formally

pronounced against, because the term cut off means only formally pronounced against" but as I

proved in my other messages, the term "cut off" also means an automatic excommunication and

thus no declaration is needed.



Yes let's move on, I have presented my opening argument, now it is your turn to attempt to refute

it, and we will continue.

- Ryan

________________ [William responds 11/4/13]

"My position is that we cannot receive sacraments from heretics. Period." I was not aware that

was your position. Now that I am aware I am wondering about your opinion on this.

Canon 882, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those

not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and

censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved or notorious..."

Am I to understand that you are also against people receiving the sacraments when they are "Indanger of death"?

(sent another message 11/4/13)

[William’s note: I sent this second message to make it clear that I do agree with MHFM.]

"My position is that we cannot receive sacraments from heretics. Period." I was not aware that

was your position. Now that I am aware I am wondering about your opinion on this.

Canon 882, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those

not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins andcensures whatsoever, no matter how reserved or notorious..."

Am I to understand that you are also against people receiving the sacraments when they are "In

danger of death"?

(By the way yes I agree with MHFM)

__________________


No, you can't receive sacraments from heretics even in danger of death, and here's why.

It is entirely correct that CATHOLIC PRIESTS are granted supplied jurisdiction in case of a

necessity to give an absolution (as infallibly defined by the Council of Trent.) Another thing is that

the 1917 Code is fallible, but that doesn't matter anyways since it isn't saying you can go to

heretics in danger of death. According to you, if the 1917 Code of Canon Law does not make a



distinction and clearly state if it was referring to Catholics or heretics, then it was referring to

both.

I'll use a quick example of Peter Dimond on this one.

Peter Dimond, "Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics" Debate -- The Important Quotes: "Thiscanon [Canon 2261.2-3] also refutes the position of the radical schismatics. It clearly teaches

that the faithful may receive sacraments from excommunicated persons, especially if there is no

one else to give them the sacraments. In response, the schismatics are forced to arbitrarily

exclude HERETICS from "excommunicated persons," even though there's nothing to support

such exclusion."

If Peter were consistent with his own teaching, he would have to conclude that Pope St. Pius X

and Pope Pius XII as well was including heretics in their statements, since they made no

distinctions. But as we have already seen, Peter doesn't teach that they were including heretics!

Peter Dimond, John Salza's Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed: "Notice, heretics are

not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, BUT IMPEDIMENTS

FLOWING FROM THE DIVINE LAW. PIUS XII'S LEGISLATION DOESN'T APPLY TO HERESY...

Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, WHICH IS

WHY HE DIDN'T MENTION HERETICS."

Pope Pius XII: "None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication,

suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from

the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff." (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).

It should be clear, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is clearly to be interpreted in agreement with the

Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other infallible proclamations.

[William’s note: Notice how Ryan makes a mistake and refers to Saint Thomas Aquinas as

infallible, “St. Thomas Aquinas, and other infallible proclamations”. Now in Ryan’s defense he

made this mistake because his whole argument is a copy paste from a Radically schismatic

website but I think it is still telling that he did not catch it. Ryan later clarifies that he does not

believe Saint Thomas is infallible.]

Council of Trent infallibly teaches that heretics cannot give a valid absolution in confession:

[William’s note: Note here that Ryan is saying he holds the position that Trent infallibly teaches

a heretical priest cannot ever give absolution. This is because absolution requires something

called jurisdiction. Ryan is wrongly arguing that Trent infallibly teaches that a heretic can never

receive jurisdiction not even in the danger of death. This is a heresy called the “no jurisdiction

position” Brother Peter Dimond gives a good explanation of the “no jurisdiction position” here

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/mp3/1jurisdiction_intro.mp3 ]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mostholyfamilymonastery.com%2Fmp3%2F1jurisdiction_intro.mp3&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFskpM710ofpD2x4JbVxogbXl_I6A



Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7, On the Reservation of Cases: "Wherefore,

since the nature of a judgment requires that sentence BE IMPOSED ONLY ON SUBJECTS, the

Church of God has always maintained and this council confirms it as most true, that the

ABSOLUTION which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor

delegated JURISDICTION ought to be counted as of NO EFFECT... But that no one may on thisaccount perish, it has always been very piously observed in the same Church of God that there

be no reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that

case absolve all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance

priests have no power in reserved cases, LET THEM STRIVE TO PERSUADE PENITENTS TO

DO THIS ONE THING, BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES FOR

THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION."

Now, one could argue that this quotation never mentioned the word "Catholic" and that it explicitly

mentioned ALL PRIESTS and that it thus as a necessity must have included the heretics. True,

the Council never mentioned the word "Catholic," but it doesn't have to for three reasons.

First, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that "the nature of a judgment requires that sentence

BE IMPOSED ONLY ON SUBJECTS". Now I ask you, are Catholics subjects to heretical or

schismatical priests and bishops that reject the Catholic Church and faith? Of course not! This

fact is of course also backed up by Holy Scripture and the magisterium of the Church: "For what

have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you [the faithful] judge them that are within?"

(1 Corinthians 5:12). So, then, it's perfectly clear that those who are outside do not command on

the inside, for "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can COMMAND in the Church."

(Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).

There are three parts contained in the sacrament of Penance, that is 1) Contrition, 2)

Confession, and 3) Satisfaction (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3). Every time the priest

tells a person what kind of satisfaction he must make in order to be absolved from his sins, the

priest makes a sentence (or command) over him that requires a satisfaction (or penance) on the

part of the penitent. However, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that "the nature of a judgment

requires that sentence be imposed only on subjects", and Pope Leo XIII "it is absurd to imagine

that he who is outside can command in the Church."

Now if a Catholic had been an eastern schismatic and confessed his former heresy or schism to

an eastern schismatic priest, the priest would tell him that he did no sin at all when he was an

eastern schismatic and that he would get no absolution unless he repented of his sin of

separating from the eastern schismatic church. And that is why no non-Catholic priest can

absolve a Catholic because the Catholic Church could never allow a non-Catholic priest to make

a sentence or judgment on other Catholics when he cannot even judge right from wrong himself.

That is not to say that heretics cannot know right from wrong in many cases, for they do. It rather

means that as long as they remain outside the Church of Christ and lack the Catholic faith, they

cannot have jurisdiction over Catholics or command them to do something that has to do with



them receiving forgiveness in the Catholic Sacrament of Penance.

Second, the Council of Trent ordered the Priests (who was among ALL THE PRIESTS

MENTIONED) that if they did not have this necessity "in danger of death" for granting a valid

absolution in confession, they then must strive "to persuade penitents to do this one thing,

BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION". But I ask you, since when does the Catholic Church endorse heretical or

schismatical priests, their superiors or their churches? Never! Therefore, this statement cannot

have referred to heretical ministers, obviously.

Third. The Council of Trent affirmed that this teaching of jurisdiction has always been upheld and

maintained in "the Church of God", and "this council confirms it as most true", thus proving to

everyone that it's not simply dealing with ecclesiastical laws that can be changed, but specifically

with dogmatic laws that can NEVER be changed.

Conclusion

These three points, then, totally excludes all heretics, schismatics, and apostates from ever

being able to grant a valid absolution in confession or from ever being able to receive supplied

jurisdiction in case of a necessity since they are outside the Church and Her jurisdiction (de

fide).

St. Thomas also explicitly teaches that a heretic cannot give a valid absolution in confession, but

I won't get into all that yet.

Now even if the fallible 1917 Code was also talking about heretics (which it's not) it would meanonly in danger of death can you go to them, but your position isn't "only in danger of death" that

you can go to them.

This is a lot of stuff to take in, so make sure you read through it very thoroughly. You haven't

attempted to refute my "cut off" argument yet, so I'll also be waiting for that.

- Ryan

_____________________


Hi

It will take me a while for a real response but I just wanted to clarify something. In your last

message you wrote this.

"It should be clear, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is clearly to be interpreted in agreement with

the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other infallible proclamations."



I assume you miswrote that. Because that sentence would indicate you think St. Thomas is

infallible. Unless you do think St. Thomas is infallible. Am I correct to assume you miswrote that

sentence?

___________________ [Ryan responds 11/4/13]

Yeah, St. Thomas isn't infallible. Sorry about that.

________________


[William’s note: This debate started with personal youtube messages but switched over to email]

Can we do this over email so we can use things like Bold etc...If you also think email would be better just email me at [email protected]

and say "this is ryan"

________________


[William’s note: Ryan is talking about giving me some “Radically schismatic material” that is on a

certain website]

Sure, if you want I can also send you the pages that I get a lot of the information from too?

________________

[Ryan sends an additional message 11/4/13]

[William’s note: We switched over to email]

Hey this is Ryan

_________________


[William’s note: I do not recommend other people read “Radically schismatic” material. The

material is very dangerous for those who have not devoted enough time to studying the issues.

There arguments are very dishonest and can all be refuted but they are also deceptive and twist

the truth. A Catholic has no obligation to read heretical material and it is perfectly acceptable, and

recommended, to refuse to read their material.]

Send the pages too. I will respond by today or tomorrow. I had some things to do.

________________




Here's the pages:

[Link to radically schismatic website removed]

[Link to radically schismatic website removed]

Yes I know those people apparently steal MHFM material from what I heard, but that doesn't

change the fact that they are correct though. I highly suggest you read through both pages, you

will be amazed. It's good that you're actually continuing with this unlike the badwilled heretics on

youtube that just insult me and after their refuted, they just insult again and then block me.

---------------


I am still working on my response to the latest argument you gave me but let me say a few

things right now. 1) I will read both articles but it will take me some time 2) Lets not pretend like

those people "apparently steal" MHFM material. They definitely steal MHFM material 3) You are

correct that just because they steal from MHFM that it does not necessarily follow that they are

wrong on this point (I think they are wrong but for different reasons). Also I am not afraid of a

debate and I don't think we have to start name calling. I think we can have a civil debate.

[William’s note: In a strict logical sense it is true that just because someone steals it does notfollow that a certain theological position they hold is necessarily false. But since God is good He

makes these Radical schismatics show that they are not of God and they end up doing things

like stealing. God does this to make it clear who has the true position.]

----------------


[William’s note: Ryan had been told that they steal but apparently never looked into it. I found this

very interesting.]

I say "apparently steal" because I've only heard of them stealing, I haven't actually seen it myself,

and therefore I just said "apparently" it's irrelevant anyways. Yes, let's have a civil debate. People

like [irrelevant] and [irrelevant] wouldn't even look at the pages and concluded that their wrong

because they steal when it's completely irrelevant to the topic, good thing you're different.

________________


Well see for yourself... [Link to “Radically Schismatic” video that stole Brother Michael Dimond’s



video and took credit for it] ... They did not make that video that is Michael Dimonds voice. I found

a link to it on their website going to their youtube channel. But those people stealing does not

make your argument wrong so I will get back to writing my response.

_______________


I see.. I never gave them money or anything. I also believe they have some wacky views on what

things are mortal sins, for instance they believe watching professional sports constitutes a

mortal sin because professional sports leads to gambling and people's lives have been ruined

from gambling, but professional sports aren't made FOR gambling, by their logic they would

have to be for gun control to stay logical, and we all know that gun control is evil.

_______________

[William responds 11/4/13][William’s note: I say that these Schismatics are “off the rails on certain things”. Just to be clear

these people are public thieves, mortal sinners, and heretics. But since Ryan was showing

some goodwill I did not want to push it. In hindsight I should have been more severe.]

Yeah, they sound like they are off the rails on certain things. But I am not debating them, I am

debating you. If you want to use some of their arguments that is fine, I will address the

arguments, not the ones who you got the argument from. I will go back to writing my response.

_______________

[William sends his large response to Ryan 11/4/13]

Hi Ryan,

I spent a lot of time reading your email. Please take time to read my email.

Your first argument

You wrote for your first argument

[[[Peter Dimond, "Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics" Debate -- The Important Quotes: "This canon

[Canon 2261.2-3] also refutes the position of the radical schismatics. It clearly teaches that the faithful may

receive sacraments from excommunicated persons, especially if there is no one else to give them the

sacraments. In response, the schismatics are forced to arbitrarily exclude HERETICS from

"excommunicated persons," even though there's nothing to support such exclusion."

If Peter were consistent with his own teaching, he would have to conclude that Pope St. Pius X and Pope

Pius XII as well was including heretics in their statements, since they made no distinctions. But as we have

already seen, Peter doesn't teach that they were including heretics!

Peter Dimond, John Salza's Arguments Against Sedevacantism Crushed: "Notice, heretics are not excluded



from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, BUT IMPEDIMENTS FLOWING FROM THE DIVINE

LAW. PIUS XII'S LEGISLATION DOESN'T APPLY TO HERESY... Thus, his legislation does not show that

heretics can be elected and remain popes, WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN'T MENTION HERETICS."

Pope Pius XII: "None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or

interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive

election of the Supreme Pontiff." (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945).]]]

For my counter point to this argument I was to bring up the point you made about Pope Pius XII not making

distinctions (the part underlined above). You argue that Pope Pius XII did not make it clear that he was

excluding heretics. Pius XII actually does make it clear that he is not talking about excommunication for

reason of heresy. This is because Pope Pius XII used the word "Cardinal" (underlined above). By using the

word Cardinal Pius XII therefore excludes those excommunicated by reason of heresy. This is because a

Cardinal cannot be a heretic. This is Catholic teaching and because as Pope Leo XIII said, "it is absurd to

imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." Therefore Pope Pius the XII does make it clear

that he is excluding heretics because it is impossible for a heretical man to be a Cardinal. (you did not

quote St. Pope Pius X so I did not address it)

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution,

which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it

shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of

the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff,

prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or

fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the

Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

...

Your second argument

You said

[[[Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7, On the Reservation of Cases: "Wherefore, since the

nature of a judgment requires that sentence BE IMPOSED ONLY ON SUBJECTS, the Church of God has

always maintained and this council confirms it as most true, that the ABSOLUTION which a priest

pronounces upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor delegated JURISDICTION ought to be counted

as of NO EFFECT... But that no one may on this account perish, it has always been very piously observed

in the same Church of God that there be no reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all

priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of

this single instance priests have no power in reserved cases, LET THEM STRIVE TO PERSUADE

PENITENTS TO DO THIS ONE THING, BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES

FOR THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION."

Now, one could argue that this quotation never mentioned the word "Catholic" and that it explicitly

mentioned ALL PRIESTS and that it thus as a necessity must have included the heretics. True, the Council

never mentioned the word "Catholic," but it doesn't have to for three reasons.



First, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that "the nature of a judgment requires that sentence BE

IMPOSED ONLY ONSUBJECTS". Now I ask you, are Catholics subjects to heretical or schismatical

priests and bishops that reject the Catholic Church and faith? Of course not! This fact is of course also

backed up by Holy Scripture and the magisterium of the Church: "For what have I to do to judge them that

are without? Do not you [the faithful] judge them that are within?" (1 Corinthians 5:12). So, then, it's perfectly

clear that those who are outside do not command on the inside, for "it is absurd to imagine that he who is

outside can COMMAND in the Church." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896). ]]]

For my counter point to this argument I will bring up the point about the sentence being imposed only on

subjects, "the nature of a judgment requires that sentence BE IMPOSED ONLY ON SUBJECTS". You take

this statement (the one in green) to mean that when it says, "be imposed only on subjects", that it is

referring to the penitent being subject to the priest (purple underlined above). This sentence is not referring to

the penitents subjection to the priest, it is actually referring to the penitent being subject to the Catholic

Church (not some individual confessor) and I will show why. If you were correct and it was referring to the

penitents subjection to the confessor then a true Pope could never go to confession. Because who is a true

Roman Pontiff subject to? Nobody. This is clearly false, Popes have gone to confession. Therefore when

Trent says, "imposed only on subjects", it is not referring to the penitent being subject to the confessor but

that the penitent be subject to the Church. Meaning that a heretical penitent cannot get absolution and inorder for that heretical penitent to get absolution they would have to become subject to the Catholic Church,

they would have to convert.

Your third argument

You said

[[[Now if a Catholic had been an eastern schismatic and confessed his former heresy or schism to an

eastern schismatic priest, the priest would tell him that he did no sin at all when he was an eastern

schismatic and that he would get no absolution unless he repented of his sin of separating from the eastern

schismatic church. And that is why no non-Catholic priest can absolve a Catholic because the Catholic

Church could never allow a non-Catholic priest to make a sentence or judgment on other Catholics when he

cannot even judge right from wrong himself. That is not to say that heretics cannot know right from wrong in

many cases, for they do. It rather means that as long as they remain outside the Church of Christ and lack

the Catholic faith, they cannot have jurisdiction over Catholics or command them to do something that has

to do with them receiving forgiveness in the Catholic Sacrament of Penance. ]]]

This is just a hypothetical scenario where a heretical priest refuses to give absolution. I agree that if the

above scenario happened absolution would not be given. It does not follow that because a heretical priest

could deny you absolution on the grounds that he does not think you sinned that then therefore he cannot

give you absolution. Also, no one is recommending going to a eastern 'orthodox' priest for absolution. There

are heretical priests who you can make a confession to and they won't throw you out. The priest I went to

knew that I thought he was in heresy and knew I was a sedevacantist but he still gave me absolution. He didnot kick me out for not agreeing with him.

Your forth argument

You said

[[[Second, the Council of Trent ordered the Priests (who was among ALL THE PRIESTS MENTIONED) that



if they did not have this necessity "in danger of death" for granting a valid absolution in confession, they then

must strive "to persuade penitents to do this one thing, BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND

LAWFUL JUDGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION". But I ask you, since when does the Catholic

Church endorse heretical or schismatical priests, their superiors or their churches? Never! Therefore, this

statement cannot have referred to heretical ministers, obviously.]]]

For my counter point to this argument I will direct you to the sentence in purple, "to persuade penitents to

do this one thing, BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES FOR THE BENEFIT

OF ABSOLUTION". You take this statement and make the following argument... IF the Catholic Church

allowed heretics to give absolution THEN (the statement in purple) would be telling said heretics [the ones

giving absolution] to recommend the penitents to their heretical superiors. This is clearly false. This logic is

flawed and I will show why. Trent is not telling the priest who is giving absolution to recommend whoever he

thinks is a superior to the penitent. No. Trent is telling the priest giving absolution to tell the penitent to,

"BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES" objectively. Heretical "churches" have

no superiors, they just have fake hierarchical titles. Trent is asking the priest to tell the Catholic penitent to

go to true and objective superiors and lawful judges (Catholic ones). Obviously, the priest will not always

obey this request. Also the request could not be obeyed in our day since no superiors exist.

[Your last point was contingent on your previous point and because of this was not addressed directly]

Note: you also said, "You haven't attempted to refute my "cut off" argument yet, so I'll also be waiting for

that ." As far as that argument goes I will have to do some more research on that and on what exactly is

being said. In the meantime could we stick to the above points.

William

_______________________

[William sends another email to Ryan 11/5/13]

You received my large response right? Also I am reading through this article

[Link to “Radically Schismatic” article removed]

I would like you to clarify something for me. Earlier in a message to me you said, "My position is

that we cannot receive sacraments from heretics. Period."

But as I am reading through the above article they say this

"It proves that a Catholic could never communicate in a sacrament with a heretic except for whatthe Church has approved of or allowed in certain situations — and that is marriage, and

baptism."

Are you in agreement with them on this point? Would you say someone could receive a

sacrament from a heretic in marriage and baptism? Or do you disagree with them on this point

and do you think that one cannot receive a sacrament (baptism or marriage) from a heretic?



________________


[William’s note: This is one of Ryan’s tactics. Ryan does not make it clear what his positions are

making himself immune to counter arguments. When his opponent does not know his

arguments from the start Ryan can then change his position when a counter argument is made.

But since he never originally made his position clear you cannot tell he changed his position. Butif you make him clarify his positions early on you can catch him in clear contradictions.]

Marriage and Baptism can be done by heretics yes. Sorry about that too, I'm just so used to

debating this topic I tend to just think that the other person knows what I'm talking about.

(Ryan)

________________

[Ryan sends another message 11/5/13]

I'll be working on my response to your last message by the way.

(Ryan)

_____________

[Ryan sends his large response 11/5/13]

[William’s note: After reading this email I was hopeful because he conceded many points.]

I took a good amount of time examining your arguments. Let's begin.

Your first response makes sense, and I see now that he said "Cardinals" so that would rule out heretics in

that sentence anyways, but there are quotes that I've seen that don't distinguish between heretics but

weren't talking about heretics, I'd have to find those quotes though.

Your second response on the "subjects" part also makes sense.

Your third response: This is just a hypothetical scenario where a heretical priest refuses to give absolution. I

agree that if the above scenario happened absolution would not be given. It does not follow that because a

heretical priest could deny you absolution on the grounds that he does not think you sinned that then

therefore he cannot give you absolution. Also, no one is recommending going to a eastern 'orthodox' priest

for absolution. There are heretical priests who you can make a confession to and they won't throw you out.

The priest I went to knew that I thought he was in heresy and knew I was a sedevacantist but he still gave

me absolution. He did not kick me out for not agreeing with him .

Here you're saying that there are heretical priests who you can make a confession to, but yet the quote from

the Council of Trent says " that the ABSOLUTION which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has

neither ordinary nor delegatedJURISDICTION ought to be counted as of NO EFFECT... " and when you said

"This is because a Cardinal cannot be a heretic. This is Catholic teaching and because as Pope Leo XIII

said, "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." As you rightly pointed out

how a heretic cannot command in the Church and thus not have jurisdiction, you apply this to the Cardinal



situation and so that would apply to the priest situation too, why would it not? Actually, that exact quote

from Pope Leo XIII rules out heretics in the quote from the Council of Trent because just like what it says " it

is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." But according to your position,

heretics can command in the Church in certain times, but this is impossible because of Divine Law and t his

fact is of course also backed up by Holy Scripture and the magisterium of the Church: “ For what have

I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you [the faithful] judge them that are within? ” (1

Corinthians 5:12). So, then, it’s perfectly clear that those who are outside do not command on the inside, for

“it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis

Cognitum, #15, June 29, 1896).

As for the 1917 Code, to further prove that it was not referring to heretics, here are these quotes

Canon 872, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “For the valid absolution of sins, the minister requires,

besides the power of Orders, either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the

penitent.”

Canon 879.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “To hear confessions validly jurisdiction must be

granted expressly, either orally or in writing.”

And so these quotes obviously aren't written to contradict each other, as for Canon 882, 1917 Code of

Canon Law: “In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly

and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever of all sins and censures whatsoever, no matter how reserved or

notorious…” after reading the other two quotes from the Canon, it makes perfect sense that it's NOT

referring to heretics, it would also be quite something that it points out "even those not approved for

confessions" but not point out heretics if they were included. Another thing is that even if the Council of

Trent and the 1917 Code of Canon Law was referring to heretics (which it's not) it would only be in danger of death "articulo mortis".

Now your fourth response makes sense aswell, but as I wen't over in my third response heretics have no

jurisdiction nor can they command in the Church, so that obviously proves that the Council of Trent was not

indicating that you can go to a heretical priest as long as you go to a true Catholic superior for permission, it

also doesn't make much sense to go to an actual Catholic superior to ask if you can be absolved from a

heretic! And as you said, there are no Catholic superiors today, and so this still ends in one thing, that it

wasn't talking about heretics, but even if it was, it would only be in danger of death.

Just to put this out there, St. Thomas Aquinas also taught that a heretic cannot absolve:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, Art. 2, Reply to Objection 1: “The effect of

absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic

cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is

necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not."



St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 39, Art. 3: “ON THE OTHER

HAND, THE POWER OF JURISDICTION... DOES NOT REMAIN IN HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS; AND

CONSEQUENTLY THEY NEITHER ABSOLVE NOR EXCOMMUNICATE, NOR GRANT INDULGENCE,

NOR DO ANYTHING OF THE KIND, AND IF THEY DO, IT IS INVALID .”

The Holy Fathers and saints teach unanimously that heretics and schismatics are ipso facto [by that veryfact] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity:

“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that

they are ipso facto [by that very fact] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2,

epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”... St. Optatus (lib.

1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,

nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib.

cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

“St. Nicholas I (epist. ad Michael) repeats and confirms the same. Finally, St. Thomas also teaches (S.

Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do onthe basis of any jurisdiction will be null.

“… those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore

perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. … while

heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For

they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is,

they have been cut off from the body of the Church without [formal] excommunication, as St. Jerome

affirms.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

St. Thomas also explicitly teaches against receiving sacraments from heretics.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 19, Art. 6, Whether those who are

schismatics, heretics, excommunicate, suspended or degraded have the use of the keys?: “On

the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. cxxi in Joan.) that the ‘charity of the Church forgives

sins.’ Now it is the charity of the Church which unites its members. Since therefore the above

are disunited from the Church, it seems that they have not the use of the keys in remitting

sins. Further, no man is absolved from sin by sinning. Now it is a sin for anyone to seek

absolution of his sins from the above, for he disobeys the Church in so doing.

THEREFORE HE CANNOT BE ABSOLVED BY THEM: and so the same conclusion

follows.”

And the the actual sin that St. Thomas is talking about is how you cannot do evil for good to come out of it,

and that if you ASSIST in another's sin, you become a SHARER in his sin, and we all know that the heretic

commits mortal sin every time he administers the sacraments while doing it as a heretic, no one denies

that.

Now before you say "St. Thomas isn't infallible" I understand that he's not infallible, but his input is

trustworthy and it's in compliance with everything else I've gone over, another is thing is that the 1917 Code



isn't infallible either, but its information is still of use of course.

Ryan

__________

[Ryan sends another email with an additional argument 11/5/13]

Oh and this is apart of my response in my other message I sent about 3 hours ago. You say this: "Trent isasking the priest to tell the Catholic penitent to go to true and objective superiors and lawful judges

(Catholic ones). Obviously, the priest will not always obey this request. Also the request could not be

obeyed in our day since no superiors exist." Now if Trent was really including heretical priests in this (which

it's not) then that would mean that the heretic would persuade you to go to a Catholic superior for

permission to receive confession from him! This logic is clearly flawed. The heretic is going to include

himself as a heretic and have you go to a Catholic superior for permission??? This also proves that it's not

talking about heretical priests, but Catholic priests who can't normally hear confessions etc.

(Ryan)

_____________

[William responds 11/5/13][Editors note: For the sake of time readers may want to skip this response of mine. I resend this

response with a slight modification. I change the word “flea” to “fur”.]

Hi,

Your first argument



neither ordinary nor delegated JURISDICTION ought to be counted as of NO EFFECT... " and when you

said "This is because a Cardinal cannot be a heretic. This is Catholic teaching and because as Pope LeoXIII said, "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." As you rightly pointed

out how a heretic cannot command in the Church and thus not have jurisdiction, you apply this to the

Cardinal situation and so that would apply to the priest situation too, why would it not? Actually, that exact

quote from Pope Leo XIII rules out heretics in the quote from the Council of Trent because just like what it

says "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." But according to your

position, heretics can command in the Church in certain times, but this is impossible

For my counter point to this argument I will direct you to the statement underlined in purple. This is not my

position, I do not say heretics can command the Church in certain times. Let me explain why. We both

agree that an excommunicated Catholic priest in the danger of death can give a valid absolution (lets say he

was excommunicated for having a concubine). Now in a normal circumstance that priest has no jurisdiction,

but in the danger of death the supernatural Church gives it to him. Now when he is temporarily given jurisdiction in this one instance is his excommunication temporarily lifted? Does he temporarily command

the Church? No, his excommunication is not lifted and he does not temporarily commanding the Church. He

is just used by God in this instance to give absolution. Just because a priest can absolve in extreme

circumstances that does not mean that he commands the Church. That is like saying since a man can

make a citizens arrest he is therefore a deputy .







penitent.”



This argument is just presupposing that a heretic can never get temporary jurisdiction. I agree

that if a heretical priest did not get jurisdiction he would not give absolution but my position is that

in extreme circumstances even a heretical priest can get temporary jurisdiction and give absolution. The

above quotes only give weight to the fact that confession requires jurisdiction. It does not give any evidence

that a heretic could never get jurisdiction. Now let us examine Canon 209 in the 1917 code of Canon law.

Canon 209, 1917 Code of Canon Law: In common error, or in positive and probable doubt,

whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both external as well as internal

form.

This is a very important cannon. As we can see the Catholic Church supplies jurisdiction, "in positive and

probable doubt". This should not be surprising. God in his goodness knows we cannot know for absolute

certain that this or that priest is definitely a true Catholic. So when (at some point in history) someoneconfessed to a heretical priest they thought was Catholic jurisdiction was supplied.

Your third argument


jurisdiction nor can they command in the Church, so that obviously proves that the Council of Trent was not

indicating that you can go to a heretical priest as long as you go to a true Catholic superior for permission, it




For my counter point to this I will bring up the fact that you did not prove that heretics can never have

jurisdiction. You simply equated commanding the Church with jurisdiction and then said they can't

command the church therefore they can never have any jurisdiction. Just because all who command the

Church have jurisdiction does not mean that all who have any jurisdiction command the Church.

The logic is this



All C have J

H has J

--------------------

Therefore H is C

All Who Command The Church have Jurisdiction

Heretics have Jurisdiction

-----------------------------------------

Therefore Heretics are Commanding the Church

If this logic was sound the following would also be true

All Dogs have Fleas

Cats have Fleas

------------------------------

Therefore Cats are Dogs

This is clearly false.

Your forth consideration

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 38, Art. 2, Reply to Objection 1: “The effect of

absolution is nothing else but the forgiveness of sins which results from grace, and consequently a heretic

cannot absolve, as neither can he confer grace in the sacraments. Moreover in order to give absolution it is

necessary to have jurisdiction, which one who is cut off from the Church has not."

Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that here Aquinas meant all heretics no matter what even in the

danger of death can never absolve.

Well now we have a problem because Aquinas also said this.

The Summa Theologica Suppl. Q. 6 Art 6

Weather one can be dispensed from confession?...

On the contrary, Penance, whereof confession is a part, is a necessary sacrament, even as

Baptism is. Since therefore no one can be dispensed from Baptism, neither can one be

dispensed from confession....

Well now we have a problem. Aquinas says on the one hand a heretic can never absolve [for the sake of

argument] and on the other hand Aquinas says one cannot be dispensed of confession. The problem is all

the priests are heretics. So what, is everyone is automatically damned? Obviously not.

Your fifth consideration

The Holy Fathers and saints teach unanimously that heretics and schismatics are ipso facto [by that very

fact] deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F02258b.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEuWG3bmuhXxy_NZuezSHEgRdSpNg


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F10733a.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHgZDvXyrQz_LA3msBwA11I_V9mHQ










Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on

the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.







For my counter point to this I will bring up the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine actually says that occult

heretics (those concealing their heresy) remain in the Church. He also make it clear that he believes they

could have jurisdiction, he even thought an occult heretic would remain Pope! He actually brings this up in

the exact document you cite (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30). Three

paragraphs below where your quote ended it said this.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by

himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of

the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the

ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism

which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of

Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him,

bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope,

he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par.

2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the

excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and

schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church,

there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same

(lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot

even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad

argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church,

they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also

the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.



"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that

is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external

union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith,

corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united

and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the

Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as

we have already proved." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

So the exact document you cited trying to prove that it has been " unanimously" taught that all heretics can

never have any jurisdiction actually teaches the opposite of what you portrayed it to teach. The document

actually said that an occult heretic could be Pope! [And a Pope obviously has jurisdiction] So the document

you cited does not help your position.

(I already made my point on Aquinas so I did not address your last Aquinas quote)

William

_____________

[William resends his email with a slight modification 11/5/13]

I made an error in my last email

this is a fixed version please respond to this email.

[Note: the error I made was I said all dogs have fleas instead of fur. So I changed fleas to fur.]

Hi,

Your first argument



neither ordinary nor delegated JURISDICTION ought to be counted as of NO EFFECT... " and when you

said "This is because a Cardinal cannot be a heretic. This is Catholic teaching and because as Pope Leo

XIII said, "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." As you rightly pointed

out how a heretic cannot command in the Church and thus not have jurisdiction, you apply this to the

Cardinal situation and so that would apply to the priest situation too, why would it not? Actually, that exact

quote from Pope Leo XIII rules out heretics in the quote from the Council of Trent because just like what it

says "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." But according to your

position, heretics can command in the Church in certain times, but this is impossible





but in the danger of death the supernatural Church gives it to him. Now when he is temporarily given

jurisdiction in this one instance is his excommunication temporarily lifted? Does he temporarily command

the Church? No, his excommunication is not lifted and he does not temporarily commanding the Church. He



is just used by God in this instance to give absolution. Just because a priest can absolve in extreme

circumstances that does not mean that he commands the Church. That is like saying since a man can

make a citizens arrest in an extreme case he is therefore a deputy .





penitent.”



This argument is just presupposing that a heretic can never get temporary jurisdiction. I agree

that if a heretical priest did not get jurisdiction he would not give absolution but my position is that

in extreme circumstances even a heretical priest can get temporary jurisdiction and give absolution. The

above quotes only give weight to the fact that confession requires jurisdiction. It does not give any evidence

that a heretic could never get jurisdiction. Now let us examine Canon 209 in the 1917 code of Canon law.

Canon 209, 1917 Code of Canon Law: In common error, or in positive and probable doubt,

whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both external as well as internalform.

This is a very important cannon. As we can see the Catholic Church supplies jurisdiction, "in positive and

probable doubt". This should not be surprising. God in his goodness knows we cannot know for absolute

certain that this or that priest is definitely a true Catholic. So when (at some point in history) someone

confessed to a heretical priest they thought was Catholic jurisdiction was supplied.

Your third argument


jurisdiction nor can they command in the Church, so that obviously proves that the Council of Trent was notindicating that you can go to a heretical priest as long as you go to a true Catholic superior for permission, it




For my counter point to this I will bring up the fact that you did not prove that heretics can never have



Your fifth consideration










Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on

the basis of any jurisdiction will be null.







For my counter point to this I will bring up the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine actually says that occult

heretics (those concealing their heresy) remain in the Church. He also make it clear that he believes they

could have jurisdiction, he even thought an occult heretic would remain Pope! He actually brings this up in

the exact document you cite (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30). Threeparagraphs below where your quote ended it said this.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by

himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of

the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the

ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of

St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism

which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of

Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him,

bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope,

he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par.

2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the

excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and

schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church,

there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same



(lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot

even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad

argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church,

they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also

the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that

is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external

union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith,

corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united

and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the

Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as

we have already proved." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

So the exact document you cited trying to prove that it has been " unanimously" taught that all heretics can

never have any jurisdiction actually teaches the opposite of what you portrayed it to teach. The document

actually said that an occult heretic could be Pope! [And a Pope obviously has jurisdiction] So the document

you cited does not help your position.

(I already made my point on Aquinas so I did not address your last Aquinas quote)

Your additional argument

Oh and this is apart of my response in my other message I sent about 3 hours ago. You say this: "Trent is

asking the priest to tell the Catholic penitent to go to true and objective superiors and lawful judges

(Catholic ones). Obviously, the priest will not always obey this request. Also the request could not be

obeyed in our day since no superiors exist." Now if Trent was really including heretical priests in this (which

it's not) then that would mean that the heretic would persuade you to go to a Catholic superior for

permission to receive confession from him! This logic is clearly flawed. The heretic is going to includehimself as a heretic and have you go to a Catholic superior for permission? ?? This also proves that it's not

talking about heretical priests, but Catholic priests who can't normally hear confessions etc.

First I will direct you to your statement in purple. You claim that Trent would be illogical for Trent to ask a

heretical priest to try and persuade a penitent to go to lawful superiors. "...let this alone be their

endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of

absolution."(Trent, session 14, chapter 7) This is not true and I will explain why. Trent is simply

asking the priest, whether heretical or not, to persuade the penitent to do the logical thing and go to the

their true and lawful judges. I will explain why this is logical as I continue. Just because you request

someone to do something that they are not likely to do it does not follow that the request is illogical . It is

illogical to ask a atheist to say the hail Mary? No. It is not likely that the atheist will say the hail Mary but

it is perfectly logical to ask an atheist to say the hail Mary, but from the atheists flawed position it would

seem illogical. It would seem illogical to the atheist because he does not believe in prayer and it would be

inconsistent with his flawed worldview. Now just because someone is inconsistent with a certain act they

do that does not mean the act is illogical. If an atheist decided to say the hail Mary, that act, although

inconsistent , would be logical. The atheist is actually being illogical by believing in atheism and being

logical by saying the hail Mary. Just like a heretical priest would be doing the logical thing by asking the

penitent to go to his lawful superiors. The heretical priest is being illogical by remaining a heretic and being



logical by telling the penitent to go to the lawful Catholic superiors. The fact that it is unlikely that the

heretical priest will follow the command is irrelevant, the command remains logical even if it is directed at a

heretic.

Second I will direct you to your statement in red. You assume that if a heretical priest did direct the penitent

to the lawful judges (Catholic superiors) that by doing that he would necessarily consider himself a heretic.

This is not true. Many heretical priest have no problem sending people to whatever "religion" and "religious

superior" the person deems true. One example of this is at Vatican 2 colleges. The colleges have pinned up

all over the college the location of all the 'religious' meeting places, mosques, synagogs, Lutheran

"churches" etc. By doing this the college and the priests running it would not consider themselves heretics.

They would consider themselves "ecumenical". Also lets say a Lutheran student came up to a heretical

priest at a V2 College (lets say he is very old and validly ordained) and the Lutheran asked him where the

Lutheran "church" was. The heretical priest would most probably tell the lutheran where the "church" is and

the heretical priest would not consider himself a heretic.

_______________________________


I will address everything you said.

Your first argument





but in the danger of death the supernatural Church gives it to him. Now when he is temporarily given

jurisdiction in this one instance is his excommunication temporarily lifted? Does he temporarily

command the Church? No, his excommunication is not lifted and he does not temporarily commanding

the Church. He is just used by God in this instance to give absolution. Just because a priest can absolve in

extreme circumstances that does not mean that he commands the Church. That is like saying since a

man can make a citizens arrest in an extreme case he is therefore a deputy .

Your position IS saying that heretics can command in the Church at certain times, and here's why: First off,

you're interpreting "command in the Church" completely wrong. You say "Does he temporarily command

the Church?" when you were talking about a sinful priest. You then continually use this term. The quote

from Pope Leo XIII does not say "command the Church" no, it says "command IN the Church" and actually

in your last response when you pointed out the Cardinal argument, you used the term correctly, because

after you did the Cardinal argument, you used that exact quote to back up how heretics cannot command inthe Church, and Cardinals do not "command the Church" but yet when it comes to the heretical priest

argument you suddenly change and say "command the Church" and that "Just because a priest can

absolve in extreme circumstances that does not mean that he commands the Church" So one point

you're using the Pope Leo XIII quote correctly in one instance, but when it comes to the priest argument it's

changed and now "command in the Church" means "commands the Church"? And on a side note, to prove

that "command in the Church" does apply to a priest and does NOT mean that he "commands the Church"

a good quote would be from St. Thomas Aquinas:



[William’s note: I did not see Ryan’s point here. I meant no difference “Command the Church” and

“Command in the Church”. I do not believe a heretic can “Command the Church” and I don’t think a heretic

can “Command in the Church”. But for some reason Ryan sees a difference.]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 2: “I answer that, The other sacraments

[such as the Eucharist] do not consist in an action of the recipient, but only in his receiving something, as is

evident with regard to Baptism and so forth. Though the action of the recipient is required as removing an

obstacle, i.e. insincerity, in order that he may receive the benefit of the sacrament, if he has come to the

use of his free-will. On the other hand, the action of the man who approaches the sacrament of Penance is

essential to the sacrament, SINCE CONTRITION, CONFESSION, AND SATISFACTION, WHICH ARE

ACTS OF THE PENITENT, ARE PARTS OF PENANCE. Now our actions, since they have their origin in us,

cannot be dispensed by others, except through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a

dispenser of this sacrament, must be such as to be able to command something to be done. Now a

man is not competent to command another UNLESS HE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIM.

Consequently it is essential to this sacrament, not only for the minister to be in orders, as in the case of the

other sacraments, but also for him to have jurisdiction: WHEREFORE HE THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION

CANNOT ADMINISTER THIS SACRAMENT ANY MORE THAN ONE WHO IS NOT A PRIEST. Therefore

confession should be made not only to a priest, but to one’s own priest; for since a priest does not absolve

a man except by binding him to do something, he alone can absolve, who, by his command, can bind the

penitent to do something [heretics, of course, cannot lawfully bind anyone to do anything with regard to

religious duties].”


You say "This is a very important cannon. As we can see the Catholic Church supplies jurisdiction, " in

positive and probable doubt". This should not be surprising. God in his goodness knows we cannot know

for absolute certain that this or that priest is definitely a true Catholic. So when (at some point in history)

someone confessed to a heretical priest theythought was Catholic jurisdiction was supplied." I'm notdenying the fact that a Catholic can err in good faith, obviously if you didn't know the person was a heretic

then you would be absolved since God knows our hearts, but in no way is this saying that we can go to

heretics that we know without a doubt to be heretics in danger of death or not. Just as the Canon says "in

positive and probable doubt" this isn't what were discussing. The point you're trying to make is that heretics

can get jurisdiction in certain cases, but as it shows, only in these special cases where you don't know for

sure whether or not the priest is a heretic. This can be compared to a lot of things. For example, if you

believe wrongly in one point, but then you find out you were wrong and changed then you didn't sin (depends

on what belief it was of course) but after you have been rebuked but you still believe wrongly then you would

be in sin/heresy. So the point is, is that yes God knows our hearts, but in no way is this backing up the

position that heretics have jurisdiction when someone is in danger of death or at times where there are no

Catholic priests left. You also said "I agree that if a heretical priest did not get jurisdiction he would not give

absolution but my position is that in extreme circumstances even a heretical priest can get temporary

jurisdiction and give absolution" the only thing you proved is that they can get temporary jurisdiction in times

when the recipient doesn't know for sure if the other is a heretic, and as I've already stated, that's not what

were discussing, you just proved the obvious really.

[William’s note: Read Ryan’s above argument very carefully. This is where his entire argument starts to fall

apart. Ryan says, “if you didn't know the person was a heretic then you would be absolved since God knows

our hearts”. Well Ryan’s whole argument is that Trent infallibly teaches that a heretic cannot absolve you of



your sins. But now Ryan is saying that you would be absolved by a heretical priest if you did not know he

was a heretic. Well dogmas do not have exceptions so Ryan just conceded (without realizing it) that he

does not believe that Trent infallibly teaches that a heretical priest can never get jurisdiction to absolve sins.

Ryan is in fact so blinded by pride that he even states that the position he is claiming to argue against is

obviously true, “the only thing you proved is that they can get temporary jurisdiction in times when the

recipient doesn't know for sure if the other is a heretic, and as I've already stated, that's not what were

discussing, you just proved the obvious really.” Ryan then states that, “that's not what were discussing”. Are

you kidding me. That is the whole debate Ryan supposedly holds the “no jurisdiction position”, meaning that

a heretical priest cannot get jurisdiction. I hold the position that a heretical priest can get jurisdiction under

certain circumstances. Ryan just lost the whole debate but he is too blind to realize it.]

Your third argument

You said "For my counter point to this I will bring up the fact that you did not prove that heretics can never

have jurisdiction. You simply equated commanding the Church with jurisdiction and then said they can't

command the church therefore they can never have any jurisdiction. Just because all who command the

Church have jurisdiction does not mean that all who have any jurisdiction command the Church." Again,

here you try to use the "command the Church" argument, as I already proved in my response to your first

argument, this is clearly false. It's command in the Church.

Then your logic is

" All Who Command The Church have Jurisdiction

Heretics have Jurisdiction" -----------------------------------------

Therefore Heretics are Commanding the Church


All Dogs have Fur Cats have Fur

------------------------------

Therefore Cats are Dogs

This is clearly false.

Again, you say "command the church" another thing is that priests do make commands in the Church

when administering the sacraments, as I've already pointed out, but I'll repeat it again:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Part, Q. 8, Art. 2: “I answer that, The other

sacraments [such as the Eucharist] do not consist in an action of the recipient, but only in hisreceiving something, as is evident with regard to Baptism and so forth. Though the action of the

recipient is required as removing an obstacle, i.e. insincerity, in order that he may receive the

benefit of the sacrament, if he has come to the use of his free-will. On the other hand, the action

of the man who approaches the sacrament of Penance is essential to the sacrament, SINCE

CONTRITION, CONFESSION, AND SATISFACTION, WHICH ARE ACTS OF THE PENITENT,

ARE PARTS OF PENANCE. Now our actions, since they have their origin in us, cannot be

dispensed by others, except through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a



dispenser of this sacrament, must be such as to be able to command something to be

done. Now a man is not competent to command another UNLESS HE HAVE

JURISDICTION OVER HIM. Consequently it is essential to this sacrament, not only for the

minister to be in orders, as in the case of the other sacraments, but also for him to have

jurisdiction: WHEREFORE HE THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION CANNOT ADMINISTER THIS

SACRAMENT ANY MORE THAN ONE WHO IS NOT A PRIEST. Therefore confession should bemade not only to a priest, but to one’s own priest; for since a priest does not absolve a man

except by binding him to do something, he alone can absolve, who, by his command, can bind

the penitent to do something [heretics, of course, cannot lawfully bind anyone to do anything with

regard to religious duties].”

Your fourth argument

You used the following quote from St. Thomas: "The Summa Theologica Suppl. Q. 6 Art 6

Weather one can be dispensed from confession?...

On the contrary, Penance, whereof confession is a part, is a necessary sacrament, even as

Baptism is. Since therefore no one can be dispensed from Baptism, neither can one be

dispensed from confession....

Is your position on St. Thomas Aquinas that he contradicted himself now? No, he's just simply stating that

baptism and confession are necessary, of course confession is necessary to go to save your soul if there is

a Catholic priest near you, but in no way is he now indicating that you can go to a heretical priest. For

example, what about the people back then who had absolutely no priests near them, they would be

dispensed from confession, what are they going to do since it's necessary? The point is that it's necessary

if their is a Catholic priest to go to, it doesn't prove that you can then go to a heretic. If St. Thomas was

saying that you could go to a heretic since confession is necessary, then that would mean that he

completely contradicted himself. Then you said "So what, is everyone is automatically damned? Obviously

not." Yes obviously not, because whenever you can't go to confession for whatever the reason may be, you

are supposed to say a Perfect Act of Contrition, your sins can be forgiven with a Perfect Act of Contrition,

this is something that I have rarely ever seen the Dimonds mention on their website, and actually today it's a

bit easier to obtain forgiveness through a Perfect Act of Contrition since we draw down more graces saying

the Rosary then people did back then.

[William’s note: Notice the astonishment that Ryan shows when I indicate the St. Thomas may have made

a mistake, “Is your position on St. Thomas Aquinas that he contradicted himself now?”. Remember earlier

when Ryan accidentally indicated that he believed St. Thomas to be infallible. His reaction to my argument

here is further proof that he gives the opinion of St. Thomas too much weight.]

Your fifth argument

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the

Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal

union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are

members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments;



http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F10733a.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHgZDvXyrQz_LA3msBwA11I_V9mHQ



the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union;" This seems like it's

talking about heretics who are united in the external form, they are not united by the internal form, as in

they conceal they're heresy and the faithful don't know it, therefore their just united externally. For instance,

Pope Honorius I he wasn't found out to be a heretic until many years later, he's still counted as a true Pope

since he was united externally ie he concealed his heresy and a lot of the faithful didn't know about it, but

internally he was not united. This one is a little tricky and I could be wrong, but after reading through it many

times, I can't think of anything else that it's saying.

[William’s note: Can you believe the inconsistency of Ryan. On the one hand he argues that a heretical

priest can never get jurisdiction to give absolution. But now he argues that a heretic can be the Pope! How

foolish does one have to be to hold both of these positions simultaneously. This further shows that Ryan has

no idea what his is talking about and has no understanding of Church teaching.]

Another thing is that it seems like you are now using this argument as proof that a heretical Pope has

jurisdiction, but yet at the beginning of your message when you were going on about the "command the

Church" argument, you said that "This is not my position, I do not say heretics can command the Church in

certain times" But now are you trying to use proof that heretics can have jurisdiction by using the St. Robert

Bellarmine argument on a heretical Pope? I thought you said your position is not that heretics can

command the Church.

[William’s note: Ryans contradictions continue. Ryan totally misunderstood my point. My point was that the

quote he used did not support his position and to say that it did is intellectually dishonest. Then because he

fails to understand what he even believes he arrogantly says, “I thought you said your position is not that

heretics can command the Church.” Yeah, that is my position, which I never contradicted. But Ryan a few

lines above just stated that a heretic can be Pope. So he obviously thought that a heretic could command

the Church. Ryan later changes his position on this]

Now onto your reply to my additional argument

You say:

You claim that Trent would be illogical for Trent to ask a heretical priest to try and persuade a penitent to go

to lawful superiors. "...let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to

superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."(Trent, session 14, chapter 7) This is

not true and I will explain why. Trent is simply asking the priest, whether heretical or not, to persuade the

penitent to do the logical thing and go to the their true and lawful judges. I will explain why this is logical as

I continue. Just because you request someone to do something that they are not likely to do it does not

follow that the request is illogical . It is illogical to ask a atheist to say the hail Mary? No. It is not likely

that the atheist will say the hail Mary but it is perfectly logical to ask an atheist to say the hail Mary, but

from the atheists flawed position it would seem illogical. It would seem illogical to the atheist because hedoes not believe in prayer and it would be inconsistent with his flawed worldview. Now just because

someone is inconsistent with a certain act they do that does not mean the act is illogical. If an atheist

decided to say the hail Mary, that act, although inconsistent , would be logical. The atheist is actually

being illogical by believing in atheism and being logical by saying the hail Mary. Just like a heretical priest

would be doing the logical thing by asking the penitent to go to his lawful superiors. The heretical priest is

being illogical by remaining a heretic and being logical by telling the penitent to go to the lawful Catholic

superiors. The fact that it is unlikely that the heretical priest will follow the command is irrelevant, the



command remains logical even if it is directed at a heretic.

First off, your response on this is completely opinionated, and in no way does it back up the Council of Trent

including heretics. Basically what you're saying is that just because it asks something that doesn't seem

likely ie having a heretical priest ask the penitent to go to his Catholic superiors that doesn't make it

exclude heretics. But there's a problem with that argument, and here's why: "But that no one may on this

account perish, it has always been very piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no

reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve

all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance priests have no power in

reserved cases LET THEM STRIVE TO PERSUADE PENITENTS TO DO THIS ONE THING, BETAKE

THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION " Now

were talking aboutheretics not sinful priests who usually can't hear confessions, this would mean that the

heretic would be including himself as a heretic by asking the penitent to go to his superiors as the

Council says to do, for what other reason would the heretical priest be asking the penitent to do this, for

keep in mind, this is heretical priests were talking about, not sinful priests who were never approved for

confessions. So after noting this, it completely rules out heretics in the Council of Trent quote. And if it was

referring to heretics (which I just proved that it's most definitely not) then that WOULD be illogical AND

inconsistent.

I covered just about every one of your arguments. Please do the same.

- Ryan

_______________________

[William Responds 11/6/13]

Hi

In my last email you must have missed my last argument since you restated yourself.

Your first argument

Your position IS saying that heretics can command in the Church at certain times, and here's why: First off,

you're interpreting "command in the Church" completely wrong. You say "Does he temporarily command

the Church?" when you were talking about a sinful priest. You then continually use this term. The quote

from Pope Leo XIII does not say "command the Church" no, it says "command IN the Church" and actually

in your last response when you pointed out the Cardinal argument, you used the term correctly, because

after you did the Cardinal argument, you used that exact quote to back up how heretics cannot command in

the Church, and Cardinals do not "command the Church" but yet when it comes to the heretical priest

argument you suddenly change and say "command the Church" and that "Just because a priest can

absolve in extreme circumstances that does not mean that he commands the Church" So one point

you're using the Pope Leo XIII quote correctly in one instance, but when it comes to the priest argument it's

changed and now "command in the Church" means "commands the Church"? And on a side note, to prove

that "command in the Church" does apply to a priest and does NOT mean that he "commands the Church"

a good quote would be from St. Thomas Aquinas:



Your argument is irrelevant. Your making a difference out of "Command the Church" and

"Command in the Church" as if their is a difference. In fact, in your argument you don't even

explain what you believe the difference is. You just say I used the word "In" in this instance and I

don't in another instance. By the way I think it is clear that neither of us think a heretic can do

either. I don't believe a heretic can "Command the Church" and I don't believe a heretic can

"Command In the Church". I will just make my argument again and put the word "in" in.

Does he temporarily command in the Church? Just because a priest can absolve in extreme circumstances

that does not mean that he commands in the Church?

And your Aquinas quote does not prove your point it would only give evidence to it. If you are going to

harass me for not using the preposition "in" I am going to harass you and tell you to use more correct

terms. secondly in the Aquinas quote

"...through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a dispenser of this sacrament, must be

such as to be able to command something to be done..."

Aquinas does not use "command in" he just uses command. Which for some reason you find important.


I'm not denying the fact that a Catholic can err in good faith, obviously if you didn't know the person was a

heretic then you would be absolved since God knows our hearts , but in no way is this saying that we can go

to heretics that we know without a doubt to be heretics in danger of death or not. Just as the Canon says "in

positive and probable doubt" this isn't what were discussing.

Okay, let me explain what I am trying to prove right now. I am trying to prove that a heretics could possibly,

under some circumstance get jurisdiction to hear a confession. I am trying to prove this because (as Iunderstand) it is your position that a heretical priest can never under any circumstance ever get

jurisdiction. So it is relevant to my argument and it is what I am discussing.

[Editors note: Take note of the argument below and pay attention to Ryans response. in the next

email.]

Secondly you just said that if someone went to a confession to a heretical priest and they did not

know he was a heretic they would be forgiven (purple). But you indicate that God did the forgiving

through some other means besides giving said heretical priest temporary jurisdiction. Well the

only way men are forgiven of mortal sin is through confession and through perfect contrition. But

in order to get perfect contrition you must get supernatural help and you become very sad and

very distraught over offending God. But one can get absolution by something called attrition,

imperfect contrition, now when someone goes to confession with just attrition they will receive

justification. And it is an infallible dogma that one cannot receive absolution with just attrition

without confession.

...And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly



conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of

punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does

not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse

of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him,

--whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice. And although

this (attrition) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of [Page 97]

Penance. (Trent, session 14 , chapter 4)

So the only way God could give someone with attrition absolution from a heretical priest is to give

that heretical priest jurisdiction.

Canon 209, 1917 Code of Canon Law: In common error, or in positive

and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies

jurisdiction for both external as well as internal form.

Secondly this cannon just says in "positive or probable doubt" it does not say in "positive or

probable doubt that he is a heretic". So let me give you a personal example I went to a heretical

priest of whom I knew was a heretic but I thought he had jurisdiction because of the arguments I

have presenting to you. So would you say that I was in error? But in common error jurisdiction is

supplied. So what, because I was in error (according to you) about him having jurisdiction the "in

common error" clause kicked in and I received jurisdiction (not a rhetorical question I want an

answer)? Also, I did not have perfect contrition, I only had attrition,I felt bad and stuff but not

perfect contrition bad, so would you say I was forgiven since, " God knows our hearts"(not a

rhetorical question I want an answer)?

Your third argument

This is just a rehash of the "in" discrepancy. I will rewrite my arguments with "In". And change my

example

"All Who Command in The Church have Jurisdiction

Heretics have Jurisdiction"

-----------------------------------------

Therefore Heretics are Commanding in the Church


All Who Command in the Government have Badges

Boy Scouts have Badges

-----------------------------------------

Therefore Boy Scouts are Commanding in the Government



This is clearly false

Your forth argument

Is your position on St. Thomas Aquinas that he contradicted himself now?

No, my position is that Aquinas never anticipated the current crisis to occur. Aquinas assumed that

their would always be at least one catholic priest. So Aquinas could have [for the sake of

argument say that you are right and he thought you could never ever get absolved from a

heretical priest]held both positions. Both that one cannot be dispensed of confession and one

cannot go to a heretical priest (putting us in a bind).

Your fifth argument

Yes obviously not, because whenever you can't go to confession for whatever the reason may be, you are

supposed to say a Perfect Act of Contrition, your sins can be forgiven with a Perfect Act of Contrition, this issomething that I have rarely ever seen the Dimonds mention on their website, and actually today it's a bit

easier to obtain forgiveness through a Perfect Act of Contrition since we draw down more graces saying the

Rosary then people did back then.

One cannot just say a rosary and easily receive perfect contrition. Perfect contrition requires

perfect love of God and requires massive supernatural help from God. Even though yes the

rosary does give more grace today it does not follow that you can just say a rosary feel sorry and

probably get perfect contrition.

Your sixth argument

This seems like it's talking about heretics who are united in the external form, they are not united by the

internal form, as in they conceal they're heresy and the faithful don't know it, therefore their just united

externally. For instance, Pope Honorius I he wasn't found out to be a heretic until many years later, he's still

counted as a true Pope since he was united externally ie he concealed his heresy and a lot of the faithful

didn't know about it, but internally he was not united. This one is a little tricky and I could be wrong, but after

reading through it many times, I can't think of anything else that it's saying.

Honorius became an antipope he did not die as a true Pope. If you think Honorius was a true Pope you

therefore believe that a heretic can be the Pope under certain conditions (if he is an occult heretic). This is

heretical.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution,

which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it

shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of

the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff,

prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or

fallen into some heresy:



(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the

Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

Just because some church men say he died a true Pope, because they misunderstand loss of office, does

not make it so. Just to be absolutely clear St. Robert Bellarmine was in error he was not a heretic.

Occult heretics do lose their office but Bellarmine misunderstood this. Saint Robert Bellarminewas erring in good faith.

Your seventh argument

Another thing is that it seems like you are now using this argument as proof that a heretical Pope has

jurisdiction, but yet at the beginning of your message when you were going on about the "command the

Church" argument, you said that "This is not my position, I do not say heretics can command the Church in

certain times" But now are you trying to use proof that heretics can have jurisdiction by using the St. Robert

Bellarmine argument on a heretical Pope? I thought you said your position is not that heretics can

command the Church.

You totally missed my point. I am not arguing that heretics can "Command the Church" or that they "can

command in the Church". My point was that you said that it was unanimously taught by the Saints and

Holy Fathers that all heretics can never have any jurisdiction. My point was that it was not unanimously

taught and to say that it was is intellectually dishonest (I know you did it on accident).

[William’s note: The reason I knew he did it on accident is because it was a copy paste from that Radically

Schismatic website.]



Then I pointed out that in the very same document that you cited, that you said taught that no

heretic can ever have any amount of jurisdiction, I showed that document teaching that a heretic

can be the Pope. A Pope has jurisdiction. My point was you portrayed the document to say one

thing but it did not say that. Thus it was a dishonest argument. I don't agree with the document. I

hold that a heretic cannot ever even if he is an occult heretic be the Pope. I also hold that a

heretical priest can get jurisdiction for absolution in extreme circumstances. My point was that

the document you cited does not help your point. The document also does not really help my

point either.

Your eighth argument

First off, your response on this is completely opinionated, and in no way does it back up the Council of Trent

including heretics. Basically what you're saying is that just because it asks something that doesn't seem

likely ie having a heretical priest ask the penitent to go to his Catholic superiors that doesn't make it

exclude heretics. But there's a problem with that argument, and here's why: "But that no one may on this

account perish, it has always been very piously observed in the same Church of God that there be no

reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all priests, therefore, may in that case absolve

all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of this single instance priests have no power in



reserved cases LET THEM STRIVE TO PERSUADE PENITENTS TO DO THIS ONE THING, BETAKE

THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION " Now

were talking aboutheretics not sinful priests who usually can't hear confessions, this would mean that the

heretic would be including himself as a heretic by asking the penitent to go to his superiors as the

Council says to do, for what other reason would the heretical priest be asking the penitent to do this, for

keep in mind, this is heretical priests were talking about, not sinful priests who were never approved for

confessions. So after noting this, it completely rules out heretics in the Council of Trent quote. And if it was

referring to heretics (which I just proved that it's most definitely not) then that WOULD be illogical AND

inconsistent.

You must have not seen the end of my email I specifically responded to your argument in red.

Second I will direct you to your statement in red. You assume that if a heretical priest did direct the penitent

to the lawful judges (Catholic superiors) that by doing that he would necessarily consider himself a heretic.

This is not true. Many heretical priest have no problem sending people to whatever "religion" and "religious

superior" the person deems true. One example of this is at Vatican 2 colleges. The colleges have pinned up

all over the college the location of all the 'religious' meeting places, mosques, synagogs, Lutheran

"churches" etc. By doing this the college and the priests running it would not consider themselves heretics.

They would consider themselves "ecumenical". Also lets say a Lutheran student came up to a heretical

priest at a V2 College (lets say he is very old and validly ordained) and the Lutheran asked him where the

Lutheran "church" was. The heretical priest would most probably tell the lutheran where the "church" is and

the heretical priest would not consider himself a heretic.

Also I will add that a few years ago I knew an eastern orthodox priest and he believed in universal

salvation. So he did not even really believe in the concept of heresy. So if I were to ask him

where the Catholic superiors are he would send me to the Catholic superiors (say for the sake of

argument that Catholic superiors existed today) because he thinks everyone goes to heaven.

And he would do this and not consider himself a heretic.

Lastly answer me this.

Is it illogical to ask an atheist to say a hail Mary?

Is it illogical to ask a heretical priest to send a penitent to objectively lawful and superior judges?

If you believe the first is no and the second is yes explain why their would be a difference. If you

believe both are no explain why it is illogical to ask an atheist to say the hail Mary.

William

_____________________


Alright, I'll go over everything you said.

Your first argument

You say: Your argument is irrelevant. Your making a difference out of "Command the Church" and



"Command in the Church" as if their is a difference. In fact, in your argument you don't even explain

what you believe the difference is. You just say I used the word "In" in this instance and I don't in

another instance. By the way I think it is clear that neither of us think a heretic can do either. I don't believe

a heretic can "Command the Church" and I don't believe a heretic can "Command In the Church". I will just

make my argument again and put the word "in" in.

It's not "irrelevant" at all, and actually I did explain the difference between them. I pointed out how you used

the term correctly by saying: "This is because a Cardinal cannot be a heretic. This is Catholic teaching and

because as Pope Leo XIII said, "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the

Church." So the point I'm making is that YOU yourself proved that a Cardinal cannot be a heretic because

it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church ." So the thing I just proved

is that you apply the term "command in the Church" to the Cardinalsituation, but then you completely twist

and distort it when it comes the priest argument. Cardinals do not "command the Church. They can

command IN the Church, as you rightly pointed out how Pope Pius XII was excluding heretics from his

quote because he used the term Cardinal, and as you said "By using the word Cardinal Pius XII therefore

excludes those excommunicated by reason of heresy. This is because a Cardinal cannot be a heretic. This

is Catholic teaching and because as Pope Leo XIII said, "it is absurd to imagine that he who is

outside can command in the Church." So what you're saying is that Cardinals can COMMAND IN THE

CHURCH, and therefore a Cardinal cannot be a heretic because it is absurd to imagine that he who is

outside can command in the Church. So what I'm saying is that you apply the "command in the Church"

argument in the Cardinal situation, but not in the priest situation, and you made the quote say " Command

the Church" and so if you believe that the term "command the Church" and "command in the Church" are

no different, then that would mean that you believe that a Cardinal can "command the Church" Do you see

the contradiction now? You don't apply it to the priest situation because that would refute the idea of

heretical priests having jurisdiction in times where you know that the priest is a heretic, but you have to

apply the "command in the Church" to the priest since you applied it to the Cardinal situation to stay

consistent with your argument. But when it came to the priest argument, you then suddenly act like it

means "Command the Church" and as I just proved, command in the Church and command the Church are

different.

You say:

And your Aquinas quote does not prove your point it would only give evidence to it. If you are going to

harass me for not using the preposition "in" I am going to harass you and tell you to use more correct

terms. secondly in the Aquinas quote

"...through their command. Hence whoever is appointed a dispenser of this sacrament, must be

such as to be able to command something to be done..."

Aquinas does not use "command in" he just uses command. Which for some reason you find

important.

I just proved that command in the Church and command the Church are different, so that completely rules

out your argument of "If you are going to harass me for not using the preposition "in" I am going to harass

you and tell you to use more correct terms." And you can't "harass" me to use "more correct terms"

because St. Thomas Aquinas IS talking about "commanding IN the Church" he doesn't have to actually say

the word "in" and by the way, I'm not St. Thomas, I didn't leave out the word "in" in his sentence, but it

doesn't matter anyways since he is explaining "command in the Church" his quote is definitely not

explaining someone "commanding the Church". As for your when you said " And your Aquinas quote does

not prove your point it would only give evidence to it" Yes, evidence. I could probably scrounge back in my



library and find more quotes that use the term command in that sense.


You say: "Okay, let me explain what I am trying to prove right now. I am trying to prove that a heretics could

possibly, under some circumstance get jurisdiction to hear a confession. I am trying to prove this because

(as I understand) it is your position that a heretical priest can never under any circumstance ever get jurisdiction. So it is relevant to my argument and it is what I am discussing." There are special cases when

the person doesn't know the person was a heretic, and yes he would be absolved, God knows our heart. The

heretic I guess you could say has jurisdiction for this one instance, but in regular cases, he doesn't, when I

use the quotes about how heretics don't have jurisdiction, I'm obviously referring to the same thing that the

Pope/Council was referring to, and that's that they don't have jurisdiction regularly, but in special cases such

as when you don't know whether or not their a heretic for sure, then you could be absolved. Yes I know I

said that heretics cannot have jurisdiction, as we both know, but yes in these special cases they may. This

doesn't prove that you can go to heretics who you know are heretics whether in danger of death or not.

[William’s note: Ryan said it again. He makes it perfectly clear that he does not hold the no jurisdiction

position, “There are special cases when the person doesn't know the person was a heretic, and yes he

would be absolved, God knows our heart. The heretic I guess you could say has jurisdiction for this one

instance”. He just stated that a heretical priest can get jurisdiction. Ryan is not even aware of his ownpositions. It is truly unbelievable that Ryan condemns others for not holding the no jurisdiction position

when he himself does not even hold the position.]

You say: "Secondly you just said that if someone went to a confession to a heretical priest and they did not

know he was a heretic they would be forgiven (purple). But you indicate that God did the forgiving

through some other means besides giving said heretical priest temporary jurisdiction. Well the only

way men are forgiven of mortal sin is through confession and through perfect contrition " That's actually not

what I was indicating, I was just saying that in special cases, you could be absolved because God knows

our hearts, I wasn't saying that the priest didn't actually absolve you, the code does say that jurisdiction is

supplied in those cases. As for an imperfect act of contrition, I am aware of this already.

[William’s note: Again Ryan makes it totally clear that the heretical priest absolved you with jurisdiction

supplied to him by God, “That's actually not what I was indicating, I was just saying that in special cases,

you could be absolved because God knows our hearts, I wasn't saying that the priest didn't actually absolve

you, the code does say that jurisdiction is supplied in those cases.” He just conceded his whole argument

again. Ryan is just too prideful to admit that he does not believe in the no jurisdiction position. He is

condemned right out of his own mouth.]

As for when you said: "Secondly this cannon just says in "positive or probable doubt" it does not say in

"positive or probable doubt that he is a heretic". So let me give you a personal example I went to a heretical

priest of whom I knew was a heretic but I thought he had jurisdiction because of the arguments I have

presenting to you. So would you say that I was in error? But in common error jurisdiction is supplied. So

what, because I was in error (according to you) about him having jurisdiction the "in common error" clausekicked in and I received jurisdiction (not a rhetorical question I want an answer)? Also, I did not have perfect

contrition, I only had attrition,I felt bad and stuff but not perfect contrition bad, so would you say I was

forgiven since, "God knows our hearts"(not a rhetorical question I want an answer)?" I'm no expert

theologian, but it sounds like the "common error" did kick in, and you may have been absolved. All this is

proving though, is that one can err in good faith, I agree that a Catholic can err in good faith. We also have

to remember though that the 1917 Code is fallible and I heard that it actually has some errors in it, so we

should also try and look for this information in other things just to be safe. I have a story too, back when I

was around 8, we found a sedevacantist priest, and I confessed to him twice, but years later I found out that

he would go to all kinds of heretics for confession, and then hear the heretical priest's confession, do I



believe I could have been absolved back then though? Yes.

[William’s note: The contradictions continue. Not only does Ryan think a heretical priest can get jurisdiction

and absolve you of sins. Ryan even goes so far as to say it could have happened to me, William. He also

indicates that it could have happened to him! Ryan rejected the no jurisdiction position over and over and

over again. Are we supposed to believe that Ryan believes that Trent infallibly teaches that a heretical priest

cannot get jurisdiction? The notion is ridiculous it is clear Ryan does not believe what he claims to believe.]

Your third argument

You say:

"All Who Command in The Church have Jurisdiction

Heretics have Jurisdiction"

-----------------------------------------

Therefore Heretics are Commanding in the Church


All Who Command in the Government have BadgesBoy Scouts have Badges

-----------------------------------------

Therefore Boy Scouts are Commanding in the Government

This is clearly false

I already proved that the priest does make a command to the faithful when having to do with the sacraments,

so therefore that would mean that a heretic "can" command in the Church if we really could go to heretical

priests, and as Pope Leo XII says, it is absurd to imagine. I know St. Thomas is not infallible, but as I've

said before, his information is in compliance with everything else, and I bet I could find more quotes that

cover the "commanding in the church" quote, and as I've repeatedly stated, commanding in the Church is

not the same thing as commanding the Church.

Your fourth argument

You say: "No, my position is that Aquinas never anticipated the current crisis to occur. Aquinas assumed

that their would always be at least one catholic priest. So Aquinas could have [for the sake of argument say

that you are right and he thought you could never ever get absolved from a heretical priest]held both

positions. Both that one cannot be dispensed of confession and one cannot go to a heretical priest (putting

us in a bind)." My answer to this is really the same answer that I gave before, that yes it is necessary if

there is a Catholic priest to go to and that one cannot be dispensed from confession if there is someone to

go to. For instance, if St. Thomas was holding both positions, then what about the people who literally had

no priest near them? They would be dispensed from confession, it's obvious that he is talking about that it isnecessary when there is a Catholic priest, there were times in history where people had no priests for

whatever reason and couldn't receive the sacraments. So he would be excluding people that have no priest

near them, and after reading his other quotes, it would make sense that he is also excluding heretical

priests. And on top of that, reading the other quotes from St. Thomas such as the command quote, it would

also make sense that he wasn't talking about heretical priests here.

Your fifth argument



You say: "One cannot just say a rosary and easily receive perfect contrition. Perfect contrition requires

perfect love of God and requires massive supernatural help from God. Even though yes the rosary does give

more grace today it does not follow that you can just say a rosary feel sorry and probably get perfect

contrition."

Every time I bring up an An Act of Contrition to someone, they always act like I'm saying that it's easy, I'm

not saying it's easy. I did not say or indicate that one can just say a rosary and easily receive perfect

contrition. It's not that easy, but what I am saying is that it is easier to obtain forgiveness with it today then

it was back then, since we do get more graces saying the rosary. You might've just been saying that it's not

easy, not accusing me of saying that it's easy.

Your sixth argument

You say: "Honorius became an antipope he did not die as a true Pope. If you think Honorius was a true

Pope you therefore believe that a heretic can be the Pope under certain conditions (if he is an occult

heretic). This is heretical"

I did not know that Honorius became an antipope, on MHFM last time I checked, they gave proof that he

didn't become an antipope, they actually have a video on that. I'm a little confused on how there heresy has

to be manifest.. maybe you could explain this one to me, I'm not as versed on this part as you.

Your seventh argument

Makes sense, I see now that the document didn't really help my position.

Your eighth argument

You say: "You assume that if a heretical priest did direct the penitent to the lawful judges (Catholicsuperiors) that by doing that he would necessarily consider himself a heretic. This is not true. Many

heretical priest have no problem sending people to whatever "religion" and "religious superior" the person

deems true. One example of this is at Vatican 2 colleges. The colleges have pinned up all over the college

the location of all the 'religious' meeting places, mosques, synagogs, Lutheran "churches" etc. By doing this

the college and the priests running it would not consider themselves heretics. They would consider

themselves "ecumenical". Also lets say a Lutheran student came up to a heretical priest at a V2 College

(lets say he is very old and validly ordained) and the Lutheran asked him where the Lutheran "church"

was. The heretical priest would most probably tell the lutheran where the "church" is and the heretical priest

would not consider himself a heretic."

You missed the point. This isn't about the penitent asking the heretical priest to do anything, this is about

the heretical priest asking the penitent to do something, but your example is of someone asking the

heretical priest something.

You then say: " Also I will add that a few years ago I knew an eastern orthodox priest and he believed in

universal salvation. So he did not even really believe in the concept of heresy. So if I were to ask him

where the Catholic superiors are he would send me to the Catholic superiors (say for the sake of argument

that Catholic superiors existed today) because he thinks everyone goes to heaven. And he would do this

and not consider himself a heretic."



Now this argument doesn't work either, and I'll explain why.

"Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7, On the Reservation of Cases: "Wherefore, since the

nature of a judgment requires that sentence BE IMPOSED ONLY ON SUBJECTS, the Church of God has

always maintained and this council confirms it as most true, that the ABSOLUTION which a priest

pronounces upon one over whom he has neither ordinary nor delegated JURISDICTION ought to be counted

as of NO EFFECT... But that no one may on this account perish, it has always been very piously observed

in the same Church of God that there be no reservation in articulo mortis [in danger of death], and that all

priests, therefore, may in that case absolve all penitents from all sins and censures; and since outside of

this single instance priests have no power in reserved cases, LET THEM STRIVE TO PERSUADE

PENITENTS TO DO THIS ONE THING, BETAKE THEMSELVES TO SUPERIORS AND LAWFUL JUDGES

FOR THE BENEFIT OF ABSOLUTION."

The quote which you claim does not rule out heretics says to "let them strive to persuade penitents to do

this one thing" But your examples were not about the heretical priest asking/persuading you to go to your

superiors, your examples were about you asking the heretical priest where the Catholic superiors are. This

once again proves that the Council of Trent was excluding heretics because as I already said, it would

mean that the heretic would have been including himself as a heretic, because what other reason would he

be asking you to go to your superiors. Another thing is that if the Council of Trent was saying for you to "ask

the heretical priest where the Catholic superiors are" that would also be completely inconsistent since the

heretic would just direct you to his heretical "superiors", you can say that your Lutheran argument was just

an example, and that your position isn't saying that the Council of Trent was saying to "ask the priest"

whether heretical or not where the Catholic superiors are, but to stay consistent with your example, that

would be your position, which is clearly false. Another thing that refutes "asking the heretical priest" would

be that the Council also says to "betake themselves to superiors and lawful judges for the benefit of

absolution" but as I've already stated, is that if the Council was saying to ask the heretical priest, like your

example explains, then that would mean you would be directed to his heretical "superiors" and obviously the

heretical "superiors" are not "lawful judges".

Now your last argument

You say: "Is it illogical to ask an atheist to say a hail Mary?

Is it illogical to ask a heretical priest to send a penitent to objectively lawful and superior judges? "

My answer to the first question is no, it's not "illogical" because asking an atheist to say a hail Mary could

do good for the atheist, you never know the situation or case, it could lead to a conversion, unlikely yes, but

possible, yes.

My answer to the second question is yes it is completely illogical to ask a heretical priest to send a

penitent to "objectively lawful and superior judges" because when you "ask" a heretical priest to send a

penitent to "superiors" he's not going to send you to true Catholic priests, he's going to send you to the

people that HE thinks are objectively lawful superior judges, and those people will be his heretical

"superiors". So the answer is yes, it's completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and

if you believe that the Council of Trent was asking you to ask a heretical priest such a thing, (which you

obviously do since you've already mentioned 2 examples like this) then that would make the Council evil.

I think I've replied to everything, please do the same for me.



___________________


Hi,

In an earlier message

You said

These three points, then, totally excludes all heretics, schismatics, and apostates from ever

being able to grant a valid absolution in confession or from ever being able to receive

supplied jurisdiction in case of a necessity since they are outside the Church and Her

jurisdiction (de fide).

You also said this

Council of Trent infallibly teaches that heretics cannot give a valid absolution in confession:

You made it very clear that you thought trent infallibly taught that a heretic can never give a valid

absolution. You also made it very clear that you thought a heretic can never get supplied

jurisdiction to absolve sins.

But now you say this

There are special cases when the person doesn't know the person was a heretic, and yes he would be

absolved, God knows our heart. The heretic I guess you could say has jurisdiction for this one instance...

You even say that in my personal example I [William] could have gotten absolution from a heretical priest.

I'm no expert theologian, but it sounds like the "common error" did kick in, and you may have been

absolved.

So you do not believe that Trent infallibly teaches that heretics cannot give a valid absolution. Because if you believed that then there would be no exceptions. But as you plainly state it can happen and Trent

cannot infallibly teach that a possible thing is impossible.

So their are 3 possibilities

1) You are totally confused and are unsure of your own position

2) You just changed your position

3) You purposely lied and misrepresented yourself



In charity I will assume it is not the third case.

[Editors note: Now that the debate is over I think it is clear that Ryan was lying and purposely

misrepresenting his positions.]

All your other points hinge on the Council of Trent infallibly teaching that a heretic can never absolve. Which

you now admit you don't actually believe so I won't address those points. So you in fact agree with me that

a heretical priest can get jurisdiction for absolution in some cases .

Lastly

I did not know that Honorius became an antipope, on MHFM last time I checked, they gave proof that he

didn't become an antipope, they actually have a video on that. I'm a little confused on how there heresy has

to be manifest.. maybe you could explain this one to me, I'm not as versed on this part as you.

Honorius definitely became an antipope because he fell into heresy. The heresy does not have to manifest,

he would lose his office when he internally accepted heresy. This is also MHFM's position, you must be

misunderstanding something. I even double checked for you and called MHFM myself, they said that yes he

became an antipope, and therefore lost office.

_____________


Not surprising, you didn't answer almost any of my points.

Actually, I went back and read the 1917 Code quote, and actually it may not be talking about heretics, it

could be talking about whether going to sinful priests or priests who couldn't normally hear confessions and

you had doubt, you could be absolved, and actually this would make much more sense because it would

then be in compliance with everything else. Another thing is that the 1917 Code is fallible, and is wrong in

other areas. As for what I said about "heretics having jurisdiction in special instances" THAT I actually take

back, because there actually isn't any proof for that to be true. As for your confession, if you were just in

"common error" then you didn't sin when you went to the priest, you didn't get absolved though. This

actually is a confusing one, I'll look into it more, and as I said, I'm not expert theologian.

[William’s note: Notice how my question is still confusing Ryan.]

You say: " All your other points hinge on the Council of Trent infallibly teaching that a heretic can never

absolve. Which you now admit you don't actually believe so I won't address those points ." No, the reason

why you won't address those points is because you don't have an actual counterpoint that refutes thosearguments, my position isn't changed from my beginning one, I take back what I said in the last message

about heretics being able to absolve in certain cases because after examining it again, there actually isn't

any proof that that quote from the 1917 Code applied to heretics, and actually my responses I made to you

about the Council of Trent in my last message further proved that heretics can't have jurisdiction and that

that quote from the Council of Trent definitely excluded heretics. I would like you to address my Council of

Trent arguments and my "command" arguments and other arguments that you left out in this one, I did not

spend 2 hours writing that email to only get back a response from 2 of the arguments when I've been



answering all of yours.

As for Honorius, I see now that he was antipope, thanks for the clarification. I had watched a debate that

MHFM had on them once and I must've gotten confused on their position after a while, I went back and

watched the debate video and I see that they believe that he was an antipope.

Now that I've cleared that up, please respond to my other points you had left out.

_________________________

[Ryan sends another email 11/6/13]

Another thing is, is that it's quite something that you pointed out my contradictions, but yet you didn't

respond to the things that show your contradictions such as the "command" argument. Interesting.

[William’s note: Notice that Ryan admits that he has contradicted himself.]

_______________________________


[William’s note: Since Ryan publicly taunts others for not accepting his verbal debate challenges so I

thought maybe he would man up and have a verbal debate.]

I, William Burke, challenge you, Ryan B[...], to a recoded debate on the issue of whether or not the Council

of Trent Infallibly teaches that a heretic cannot ever recieve supplied jurisdiction. This debate would take

place within two weeks. I need time to get a Skype account make sure everything is working and organize

my arguments.

[William’s note: Recorded not recoded]

____________________________


I debate over Skype quite a bit, but the reason why I won't accept a verbal debate from you right away is

because I have already brought forth all of my arguments on the Council of Trent etc. and as I've already

said, you didn't address those points, you left them out, and as I said, I didn't spend 2 hours of typing that

for nothing, 2 hours to get a reply asking for a verbal debate over Skype in two weeks.

[William’s note: Unsurprisingly Ryan refuses. He also whines about how he spent two hours writing his

email.]

_______________________________________________


This debate is over. I already refuted you. You recanted your position a few emails ago then you recanted

your recantation. You are condemned out of your own mouth. You then refused a verbal debate. You are on

the road to hell.

_________________________________________________




[William’s note: Notice Ryan condemns me for holding positions he held a few emails ago.]

You're kidding me right? You are nothing but a demonic heretic on the road to Hell, you didn't respond to my

other points because they completely refuted you and exposed you for the liar that you are, you are simply

a coward. In this debate you twisted things and changed what things meant just so it could fit your heretical

position, even after I called you out when you twisted and contradicted yourself. You are a self condemned

liar. You are simply full of pride, and you don't want to admit you were wrong, it was quite apparent that you

were full of pride from the get go, since you insulted me after the first message. Again, what's your reply to

the "command" argument? What's your reply to the Council of Trent argument? Where's your reply to the

other points you left out? You left those because of one reason, you have no counter points to those, and

you hate the fact that I exposed you for the liar you are. The debate is over. You got refuted, and you don't

want to face it, it's that simple. It's amazing how you tried to bring up my "contradictions" but yet you didn't

respond to the thing that showed YOUR contradictions and your blatant lies. Yes I refused a verbal debate

because of the fact that it would be a waste of time, I spent 2 hours on that message, and you come back

and don't even address them. Why because you're a prideful heretic. I'll pray for you sir.

[William’s note: Now he refers to his contradictions as “contradictions”. Notice that Ryan continues to whine

about how long he took to write his email. Also notice that he again rejects my challenge for a verbal

debate. He knows he would be crushed and exposed.]

_______________________________________________________

william burke vs ryan b : debate against a radical schismatic

Documents