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 wrongly believe 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 and they 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]
47
Embed
William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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]
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
____
[Ryan responds 11/3/13]
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....
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
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)
__________________
[Ryan responds 11/4/13]
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
_____________________
[William responds 11/4/13]
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."
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
---------------
[William responds 11/4/13]
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.]
----------------
[Ryan responds 11/4/13]
[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.
________________
[William responds 11/4/13]
Well see for yourself... [Link to “Radically Schismatic” video that stole Brother Michael Dimond’s
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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?
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
[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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
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 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 .
Your second argument
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.”
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
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.
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
“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 on
the 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)
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.
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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 second argument
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.”
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
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 notindicating 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.
For my counter point to this I will bring up the fact that you did not prove that heretics can never have
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
(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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
_______________________________
[Ryan responds 11/5/13]
I will address everything you said.
Your first argument
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 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:
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
[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].”
Your second argument
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
If this logic was sound the following would also be true
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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;
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
Your second argument
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
If this logic was sound the following would also be true
All Who Command in the Government have Badges
Boy Scouts have Badges
-----------------------------------------
Therefore Boy Scouts are Commanding in the Government
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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:
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
library and find more quotes that use the term command in that sense.
Your second argument
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
If this logic was sound the following would also be true
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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."
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic
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.
_____________
[Ryan responds 11/6/13]
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
8/13/2019 William Burke vs Ryan B : Debate against a Radical Schismatic