SSPPXX

 

HA HA HA. The autistic lawyering of the SSPX is cringe as fuck, and essentially gay. There, I said it. 

SSPXXX

 

Will the SSPX schism from the Catholic Church? Does anyone care? Except a bunch of autistic tradCaths?

Retardmaxxing

 

"God blesses his most retarded soldiers" is the title of this YouTube video, which discusses something called "retardmaxxing". The message is that it´s actually a good thing for Christians (specifically conservative Catholics) to be retarded?!

It´s irony, of course, but I can´t help thinking that *this* approach is doomed to failure. Especially on-line. It reminds me of Tucker Carlson´s "Low IQ" hats...

Fatima pro and con (part 2)

 

ChatGPT continues its discussion on Fatima...

Is Fatima strong or weak evidence compared to other miracle claims?

Short answer: Fátima is usually considered one of the stronger miracle claims in Catholicism—but still contested and not decisive evidence outside that framework.
Where it lands depends a lot on what you think counts as “good evidence.”

Let’s break that down in a grounded, comparative way.

---

🏆 Why Fátima is often seen as strong evidence

🌞 1. Scale and publicity

Compared to most miracle claims, the Miracle of Fátima stands out because:

• Tens of thousands were present
• It was announced in advance
• It was covered by secular media (e.g. O Século)

👉 This is unusual. Most miracles:

• Happen to individuals or small groups
• Aren’t publicly predicted
• Lack independent documentation

Result: Fátima scores high on publicity and documentation.

---

🎯 2. The prediction factor

The children (especially Lúcia dos Santos) said a miracle would occur on a specific date.

👉 Compared to other miracles:

• Lourdes healings → not predicted
• Weeping statues → not predicted
• Near-death experiences → not predicted

Prediction + apparent event = stronger evidential structure

---

👥 3. Mixed audience (not just believers)

Reports came from:

• Devout Catholics
• Skeptics and anticlericals
• Journalists

👉 This matters because many miracle claims happen in:

• Highly controlled religious environments
• Expectation-heavy settings

Fátima still has expectation—but not uniform belief.

---

⚖️ Why it’s still considered weak or inconclusive by skeptics

🔬 1. No objective physical trace

Unlike some other claims:

• No measurable change in the sun
• No lasting physical anomaly
• No independently verifiable physical evidence

👉 Compare with:

• Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano → physical substance (claimed flesh/blood)
• Lourdes → medically investigated healings

Fátima is purely experiential/visual.

---

👁️ 2. Inconsistent reports

Not everyone saw the same thing—or anything at all.

👉 Compared to stronger empirical cases:

• Good evidence usually produces consistent observations across observers

Skeptics say Fátima looks more like:

• A variable perceptual event than a stable external phenomenon

---

🧠 3. Competing natural explanations

Unlike some miracle claims that are harder to model, Fátima has multiple plausible explanations:

• Optical effects from staring at the sun
• Atmospheric distortions
• Crowd psychology

👉 None alone explains everything—but together they form a plausible cumulative alternative.

---

⏳ 4. Vision reports developed over time

As we discussed:

• The apparition descriptions (especially by Lúcia dos Santos) became more detailed later
• Theological elements became clearer over time

👉 This weakens it slightly compared to cases where:

• Documentation is immediate and stable

---

🆚 How Fátima compares to other miracle types

🥇 Stronger than most visionary experiences

Compared to:

• Private visions
• Dreams
• Mystical experiences

👉 Fátima is much stronger because:

• It’s public
• It has many witnesses
• It was predicted

---

🥈 Roughly comparable to Lourdes

Compared to Lourdes:

• Fátima strength: public spectacle + prediction
• Lourdes strength: medically investigated healings

👉 Philosophically:

• Fátima = dramatic but ambiguous perception
• Lourdes = less dramatic but more medically grounded claims

---

🥉 Weaker than the best medical miracles (arguably)

Some Catholic healings (at Lourdes or elsewhere) are:

• Documented medically
• Examined by skeptical doctors
• Declared “inexplicable”

👉 These can be stronger empirically, because:

• They involve objective bodily change, not perception

---

⚠️ Much stronger than folk miracles

Compared to:

• Weeping statues
• Viral “miracle” videos
• Local supernatural claims

👉 Fátima is far more credible due to:

• Historical documentation
• Scale
• Cross-checkable testimony

---

🧭 Bottom line

If you rank miracle claims broadly:

• Weak tier: anecdotal, private, unverifiable
• Middle tier: Fátima-type events (public, but perceptual)
• Stronger tier: medically documented, physically testable cases

👉 So Fátima lands here:

Upper-middle tier: unusually strong for a visionary miracle, but not decisive evidence of the supernatural

---

🧠 The deeper philosophical divide

Fátima is almost a perfect test case for worldview differences:

• If you’re open to divine action in history, it looks impressively structured
• If you require controlled, repeatable, physical evidence, it falls short

Fatima pro and con (part 1)

 

ChatGPT on the pros and cons of Fatima. 

What do skeptics say about Fatima (the Catholic miracle in Portugal)?

The Miracle of Fátima—especially the famous “Miracle of the Sun”—is one of the most discussed religious events of the 20th century. While many Catholics see it as strong evidence of divine intervention, skeptics have offered a range of alternative explanations.

---

🌞 What witnesses reported

On October 13, 1917, tens of thousands gathered near Fátima, Portugal. Many reported:

• The sun appearing to spin, dance, or zigzag
• Sudden color changes
• The sun seeming to plunge toward Earth
• Clothes and ground drying rapidly after rain

But not everyone present saw the same thing—and some saw nothing unusual at all.

---

🔍 Main skeptical explanations

1. Optical effects & eye damage

Skeptics often argue that people were staring directly at the sun, which can create:

• Visual distortions (afterimages, movement illusions)
• Color shifts due to retinal fatigue
• Temporary blindness or shimmering effects

This can make the sun appear to “dance” without actually moving.

👉 This is one of the most widely accepted natural explanations.

---

2. Mass suggestion / expectation

The children (especially Lúcia dos Santos) had predicted a miracle at a specific time and place.

Skeptics say:

• A large crowd gathered expecting something supernatural
• Psychological factors (crowd dynamics, suggestion, excitement) influenced perception
• People interpreted ambiguous visual experiences in line with religious expectations

This is sometimes compared to collective religious experiences elsewhere.

---

3. Atmospheric phenomena

Some propose unusual but natural sky effects:

• Thin clouds or mist diffusing sunlight
• Ice crystals causing halos or color effects
• Rapidly moving cloud layers creating illusion of motion

These could produce strange solar visuals without violating physics.

---

4. Inconsistent testimony

A key skeptical point:

• Reports varied widely (spinning, falling, color changes, or nothing at all)
• The phenomenon was not observed universally, even nearby
• No astronomical observatories recorded solar anomalies

If the sun had physically moved, it would have been seen globally—not just locally.

---

5. Post-event embellishment

Some historians argue:

• Accounts became more dramatic over time
• Early reports were less spectacular than later retellings
• Memory and storytelling shaped the narrative

---

6. Drying clothes explanation

The claim that soaked clothes suddenly dried is sometimes explained by:

• Wind + sunlight after rain
• People overestimating how wet they were
• Psychological exaggeration after a dramatic event

---

🧠 A more nuanced skeptical view

Not all skeptics dismiss everything outright. Some say:

• People genuinely experienced something unusual
• But the cause was likely natural + psychological, not supernatural

This approach tries to respect the sincerity of witnesses while rejecting miraculous explanations.

---

⚖️ The core disagreement

• Believers: A divinely orchestrated public miracle confirming Marian apparitions
• Skeptics: A mix of optics, psychology, and social context

---

If you want, I can also go into the strongest arguments defenders use against these skeptical explanations—that’s where the debate gets really interesting.

Yes, please.

Great—this is where the debate becomes much more interesting. Defenders of the Miracle of Fátima don’t just appeal to faith; they argue that the skeptical explanations fail to account for key features of what happened.

---

🌞 1. “Too many witnesses” for a simple illusion

Defenders emphasize:

• Estimates of 30,000–70,000 people present
• Witnesses included believers, skeptics, journalists, and anticlericals
• Some reports came from miles away

👉 Their argument:
Mass optical illusions can happen—but it’s harder to explain huge, diverse crowds reporting structured, similar phenomena (spinning, descending sun, colors).

---

🧾 2. Contemporary secular reporting

A major point in favor is that non-religious sources documented the event.

For example:

• The Lisbon newspaper O Século (anti-clerical at the time) described extraordinary solar behavior
• Journalists reportedly expected nothing—and were surprised

👉 Defender claim:
This reduces the likelihood that the event was purely religious propaganda or group hallucination.

---

🎯 3. A specific, fulfilled prediction

Months before October 13, the children (especially Lúcia dos Santos) publicly announced:

• A miracle would occur
• At a specific time and place

👉 Defender argument:

• If this were random atmospheric or psychological effects, why did it happen exactly when predicted?
• The timing suggests intentionality, not coincidence

Skeptics respond that expectations shaped perception—but defenders say this doesn’t explain the precision and scale.

---

👀 4. Not everyone looked directly at the sun

To counter the “eye damage” theory:

• Some witnesses claimed to see the phenomenon without staring directly at the sun
• Others described the sun as not painfully bright, allowing prolonged viewing

👉 Defender argument:
If retinal damage were the cause, experiences should be:

• Highly individual
• Not coordinated or structured

But reports often describe organized movement (spinning, zigzagging).

---

🌍 5. Reports from a distance

Some testimonies claim:

• The phenomenon was visible outside the immediate crowd
• Observers miles away reported unusual solar behavior

👉 Defender argument:
This challenges the idea of localized crowd psychology.

(Skeptics question how strong or reliable these distant reports are.)

---

🔬 6. The “physical effects” problem

One of the hardest points for skeptics:

• Wet ground and clothes reportedly became dry very quickly
• Some described a sudden heat-like effect

👉 Defender claim:
Psychological explanations don’t easily account for physical environmental changes.

Skeptics reply with natural drying explanations—but defenders argue the speed and scale were unusual.

---

🧩 7. Consistent core pattern (despite variation)

Defenders admit testimonies differ—but argue:

• Variations are expected in any large crowd
• The core experience is consistent:
  • Sun changes appearance
  • Motion (spin/dance/zigzag)
  • Color phenomena

👉 Their point:
Complete uniformity would actually be more suspicious.

---

🧠 8. “Hallucination doesn’t scale well”

A philosophical objection:

• Hallucinations are typically private and idiosyncratic
• Here we have a shared, structured experience across thousands

👉 Defender conclusion:
This looks less like hallucination and more like a real external phenomenon, even if its nature is debated.

---

⚖️ Where the debate really sits

The disagreement isn’t just about what happened—but about how to interpret unusual events:

• Skeptics:
  Combine smaller natural explanations (optics + expectation + atmosphere)
• Defenders:
  Argue that stacking explanations still fails to fully explain the convergence of:
  • Prediction
  • Scale
  • Structure
  • Physical effects

---

🧭 A deeper layer (often overlooked)

Some philosophers and historians take a middle path:

• Something real and unusual likely occurred
• But interpreting it as a Catholic Marian miracle is an additional step

This separates:

1. The event itself
2. The religious meaning assigned to it

---

If you want, I can go even deeper into:

• How this compares to other mass religious phenomena (like Lourdes or modern apparitions), or
• Whether Fátima is considered strong or weak evidence compared to other miracle claims.

"Buddha didn´t do that shit" (?!)

 

Ahem...

Mr Breakfast

 

Here is our man Formscapes again. I commented on "Mr Breakfast" and one of his videos about the GenZ revival before.

>>>Recently (ish) the channel "religion for breakfast" released a video which addressed the "zoomer religious revival" phenomenon. In the video, Mr Breakfast argues that this phenomenon isn't actually occurring, and that the headlines claiming otherwise are all misleading, and presents a decent pile of survey/statistical data which seems to suggest that no such revival is happening.

>>>This, my friends, is a great example of why quantifiable data should never be trusted more than your own eyeballs. Source; my eyeballs. What the statistical data does show is that there had been a very pronounced downward trend in religiosity over the past few decades, and that this downward trend seems to be coming to a halt. But, argues Mr Breakfast, this halt of a downward trend is not a "revival" because there has not been an uptick in church attendance, professed religiosity, conversions, etc... >>>Statistical data is, I ven under the best of circumstances, a sawed-off shotgun among epistemological tools, due to the fact that it is extremely reductive and abstract, and - significantly - because the extent of this glossing is usually not fully clear to people. >>>In this case, what those numbers aren't accounting for is the fact that not all human beings are equal in terms of cultural influence. Among any generation of people, you are going to have a very large majority of people who are just kind of "going with the vibe", and a very small minority of people who are standing on the razor's edge between present and future. The latter are what the kids these days refer to as "main character energy", so I'm told. >>>So if you want to understand the direction a given zeitgeist is headed in, you shouldn't be taking of surveys of everyone as though everyone were equal. You need to look to the "main character energy" people and see what they are doing, bc in very short order, the "just going with the vibe" people will be following along with the trail being cleared by the former. >>>When I - a millennial - was in my late teens and early twenties, all of us "main character" kids were into things like Marxism, new atheism and postmodernism. No statistical study performed in 2008 would have predicted that in 15 years, those ideas would have leaked into every aspect of pop culture. But anyone paying attention could have told you that, bc they could see with their own eyeballs that those were the topics of interest to all of the people of that generation who were undoubtedly going to become novelists, opinion piece writers, screenplay writers and academics in the coming decades. >>>The current religious revival is like that. Look at the people who are suddenly converting to Orthodoxy and Catholicism. They aren't the "go with the vibes" kids. They are the cerebral, autistic nerds who will be novelists, opinion havers, screenplay writers, etc in the next decade or two. >>>Now to be clear, I don't think that this is a good thing - for reasons I'll be getting into in my next unscripted rant video, so stay tuned for that - but it is definitely happening, and that is in fact what the statistical data shows if you have eyeballs with which to see what the statistical data is actually about. >>>Nothing is Hidden™️

Original text here:

Formscapes comments Mr Breakfast

Self-exorcism

 

This seems to be a joke, some trolls who are making fun of Peter Dimond, a sedevacantist content-creator on YouTube. 

We deserve better psy-ops

 

This is *very* strange. Maybe it´s part of some 27-dimension smoke-and-mirrors psy-op, and then some. Or maybe Epstein and Bannon were just delusional. 

Or maybe...I don´t know. There were rumors that Bannon and the Trump camp wanted to influence the papal elections, but why would *Epstein* be in on a prior conspiracy against Francis? Why would he even care?

Did Francis do something that really pissed off Epstein? Something about Israel, paedophile priests, the Vatican bank...

May you live in interesting times.

 

LARP-ing as the Anti-Pope

 

I blogged about this bizarre cult before. This is an old video (from 2001) showing the "pope" of the Spanish "Palmarian Church" supposedly having a vision of Christ. Yeaaaah, that´s likely. As far as I understand, the anti-pope "Gregory XVII" (real name Clemente Dominguez y Gomez) is the actual founder of the "Church". More here: 

A tenebrous sect?

And so it begins

 

In case anyone still follows the tradCath situation, the SSPX has declared that they will resume consecrating new bishops. Which is a direct challenge to the papacy of Leo XIV. According to canon law (or papal interpretation thereof), consecrations of bishops without the approval of the papacy result in immediate excommunication. 

So this stuff will continue for another 25 years. Springtime for a certain kind of on-line content creators, theology nerds and, I suppose, Angry Young Men who are really hopeless sectarians. 

Count me out, bruh.  

Out for lunch

 

This little video (from our bro RZ) was more interesting than I expected. It seems on-line Christianity has exactly the same problems as...well, everything else on-line. 

Specifically, religious/worldview subcultures. People LARP, or un-ironically change their worldviews every month or so. I´m sure they also come up with new ones, although perhaps not on Christian forums? Maybe that´s more specific to Neo-Paganism or LGBTQ, but otherwise, it´s the same chaos. 

RZ connects it to American commercialism and consumerism, which is probably a large portion of the explanation. Add individualism, narcissism, and the (alleged) confusion of teenagers and young adults, spice it with the Internet´s anonymity, and off you go.

Years ago, there was an extreme LARP-er on Twitter who pretended to be a Catholic. He was well-versed in Catholic theology, posted pictures of saints on their feast days, and so on. Then, all of a sudden, he couldn´t keep it up anymore and admitted that he wasn´t even baptized, let alone confirmed?! Pandemonium ensued and I don´t remember what happened to the dude. He seemed quite young.

RZ mentions the liberal or crypto-liberal Emergent Church (yes, I remember them - "oil is a substance"), the conservative Young, Restless & Reformed movement (I used to call them Old, Reckless & Irredeemable) as examples of fashionable trends which eventually didn´t go anywhere. Today, we have the tradCaths and the Orthobros, both claiming to be "based" or what have you. 

It´s intriguing that RZ, who seems to be a fairly conservative Christian and frequently attacks other religions and atheism, is nevertheless so irenic towards other Christian denominations other than his own (he is a Presbyterian). Even to the point of saying that it´s better to stay in the same denomination than to go "denomination-hopping".

Of course, my case is different. There! I said it. :P        

Bless the ice

 

 

Apparently, Pope Leo blessed a bloc of ice (!) recently at some kind of climate activist event. Wtf, I love Pope Leo now. Could...he...be...a covert panentheist?!

It was but a dream

 

So I´ve been browsing the interwebs. Is the far right´s flirt with Pope Leo officially over now?

Rigged

 

Steve Bannon has something to say about the new pope. Apparently, Bannon served in the US navy with the future pope´s brother! His other comments are more interesting...

Not sure who Sean Spicer is. 

Pope whisperer

 

Or the canary in the sacristy? The rumors surrounding the new pope are almost funny. Unless you are a Catholic traditionalist, I assume. For instance, the speculations about his Baroque-ish outfit?! Oh, and I learned a new term: "liturgical centrist"... 

You preach it, boy!

 

Tell that to the Traditionalists...

Death and lying

 

Emerson Green on the Christian apologetic claim "Nobody dies for a lie". Here promoted by none other than Mel Gibson! Unfortunately, people die for lies all of the time. Including self-conscious ones. Personally, I don´t think the apostles died for something they knew was a lie, but the claim that *nobody* would do this is gullible in the extreme. The opposite is also the case: true believers in other religions may chose to die for *their* beliefs based on allegedly supernatural events. Say a Hindu who believes that one of his gods (or his deceased guru!) have actually appeared to him... 

Habemus papam

 

It can´t be long now...

Gold, silver and Hellenizers

 

In a previous blog post, I mentioned the ultra-sedevacantist sect Mary´s Little Remnant and their leader, Richard Ibranyi. Whom I never heard about until earlier this week. Ibranyi argues that the papacy apostasized already in 1130 AD. Thus, for almost one thousand years, the Chair of Peter has been vacant. But why specifically 1130? No idea. The group´s website is difficult to navigate, so I only skimmed some of the material. 

Ibranyi has a huge problem with both the Church Fathers and the medieval Catholic Church. He seems to be a kind of "purist" who completely rejects absolutely all pagan/outside influences on Christianity. But many theologians and Church leaders both in the Roman Empire and in medieval Europe were so influenced. They made use of Greco-Roman philosophy and read Greco-Roman literature. Most notably Origen, who sounds almost like a Platonist. Indeed, many Church Fathers were sympathetic to some of Origen´s ideas (Origen wasn´t condemned as a heretic until centuries after his passing). Hence, they were heretics and apostates all. Jerome in particular is attacked, perhaps because the Catholic Church considers him a great teacher. Ibranyi also have a huge problem with high medieval and Renaissance art with its pagan motifs and gargoyles. 

The language of his works is frequently strident and extreme, as when he calls Thomas Aquinas "a monster born into this world" or refers to Albert the Great as "Albert the Great Wretch". Post-1130 popes are refered to as "Apostate Antipopes". The mystic Hildegard of Bingen was a "witch". The Black Death (which killed many clergy and monks) was God´s just punishment of the heretical Church. 

Somehow, Ibranyi seems to believe that the papacy nevertheless tried to suppress all these heresies until the 12th century. He likes Augustine (surprise) and also Constantine the Great, arguing that the Roman emperor was baptized already in 314 and didn´t die as an Arian heretic. A peculiar trait of Ibranyi´s message is that the Septuagint is considered the most reliable OT translation. This, of course, is the Eastern Orthodox position. The strident purism sounds "Protestant". So what is Catholic about this group, exactly?

Interestingly, when Ibranyi condemns Bernhard of Clairvaux, his line of attack is from the opposite side: 

>>>The apostate Bernard was a stoic. He condemned or abhorred good things and good passions that God has given men to enjoy. He abhorred most of the material world as if it were evil. Hence he attempted to become a pure spirit without any attachment to the body or material world, a pure spirit that destroys or totally suppresses good passions and good senses. 

>>>Therefore, he had much in common with the Gnostics and Manicheans. In the following quote Bernard condemns the five senses, sports, recreation, theater, actors, beauty, music, pleasant odors, silver, gold, and comely dress as intrinsically evil.  

>>>He was a heretic because he was an iconoclast. He abhorred gold, silver, and images. He was a schismatic for saying that he does not belong to good Catholics who like gold, silver, and images in holy places. He was guilty of mortal sins for saying that good Catholics who like gold, silver, and images in God’s churches were fools and incapable of spiritual things. 

>>>He was a sacrilegious blasphemer for stealing gold, silver, and gems from giving glory to God. He was guilty of the mortal sin of murder for trying to murder himself and his brothers by severe penances.

>>>One of Bernard’s complaints was the expense of the gold, silver, and images in churches and other Catholic places. He says that these things should have been sold and the money given to the poor and that poor Catholics should keep their money instead of spending it on gold, silver, and images to be used to give glory to God in his churches and other holy places:

>>>The apostate Bernard committed the same sin as Judas Iscariot when Judas wanted to withhold expensive things that give glory to God and instead give the money to the poor, and in Judas’ case to give it to himself because he was a thief.

Well, it´s good to hear that Ibranyi likes the silver and the gold in Christian churches, I mean, how can we *ever* be without *that*, huh? Mary´s Little Remnant reminds me of ultra-leftist Marxist groups which to their shock and utter dismay realize that even Marx and Lenin "supported" nationalism, reform struggles or great power geopolitics. 

Ibranyi is still a bit inconsistent, however, perhaps because he really does want to be a Roman Catholic. Somebody else might draw the conclusion that either Paul, James or Christ himself must have been "heretics", since they were either too Jewish or to pagan! And then it´s off to seeing pagan influences in the Torah itself...

We´re dealing with a certain kind of sectarian psychological mentality.