It is the year 2051 CE. Rad-Trads have declared, based on their own private judgment, that Pope Susan is in fact a woman, and therefore not the pope. Fredrik Tunaphisch reports on SUSANVACANTISM.
That was hilarious, and the point well taken. I find both positions (St. Bellarmine/Cajetan) to have issues, but this satire certainly accomplished its goal of pointing out the shortcomings of the latter.
Thank you for sending. I’d have to reflect a bit more on da Silveira’s theory of “indirect magisterial approval,” by which he purports to equate a theologian receiving permission to print with magisterial endorsement. That seems problematic, since theologians advancing contradictory positions have all received such approbations. Consequently, it seems that da Silveira’s theory would introduce contradiction into the corpus of magisterial teaching.
Oh yes, it doesn't mean that. The idea - not his, you can find it in people like Vacant, Kleutgen etc, but older than that I think - definitely entails more than what you describe. You could try these for size, but they've not been reformatted for the new site yet:
It’s interesting that Catastrophe and The Leftovers would say that it’s obvious whether someone is a woman, underage, habitually insane, or unbaptized, but that the Code’s list includes two things that we simply cannot know - whether a person believes in the Faith or is schismatic. We just can’t know those two things without a future judgement by the cardinals, including those installed by Susan. In fact, we are able to know whether a person is a woman but only up until the moment our ever-faithful cardinals declare the person pope. Then we simply lose any ability to judge the person’s gender. We must wait until the day that the ever-faithful cardinals tell us what the person’s gender is, remembering that if such cardinals are excommunicated by Susan, we will be obligated to throw them under the bus.
And we must not forget another factor. Those who insist the question of gender is relevant are ultragenderists and should accept the obvious solution - to admit that we place way too much importance on the role of the pope and should just accept that neither the papacy nor the gender nor the religious beliefs of the pope really matter all that much. After all, the church is full of liturgical music experts, Protestant converts and lifelong Conservative Catholics, as well as progressive Catholics (often certified by no less than 12 years of Catholic education!) who are more than happy to tell us what is safe or unsafe to believe. Didn’t Jesus promise that the gates of hell would never overcome the liturgical music experts? Are we willing to believe that His promise has failed? Perish the thought.
LJC! Dear Mr. Wright, thank You very much this brilliant satire, in that the whole problem has been clarified!!! This clear and evidenced position originates from Sanctus Spiritus obviously. God bless You & Your Family! Best regards from one strictly susanvacantist ;)
No doubt, Pope Susan took her regnal name to honor Susan from the Council and all the Susans who have assiduously served the Spirit of Vatican II through their activism in their local parish councils.
Disagree here - we can tell that a women can never be Pope from Gods revealed will in Scripture, it is therefore valid for believers resting upon that authority and the authority from the in-dwelling Holy Spirit which is present in all believers to publicly declare a women whom is a Pope invalid and therefore not a legitimate Pope in the eyes of Heaven. I actually think the False Prophet could well be a women so if that were to be correct then one’s entire salvation could become dependent on making such a stand. You can’t replace Sola Scripture with Sola Magisterium which is what you are doing and is an error of Catholicism - if the pillars of the faith, which include Scripture, do not align in perfect harmony then we know what is being suggested is not from God so this would as I said instantly render a female Pope invalid as Scripture does not square with it.
Problem is satire is supposed to make a valid point in a humorous way and the point this is trying to make just isn’t valid so it doesn’t fit the bill in my eyes
Re read it a bit and with you and kind of shoulder shrug, it is a little bit alien to my way of thinking that humour has its uses in a debate like this but kind of whatever but it’s also the medium for my money, this might be funny as a Blackadder esq skit but for me it’s the acting out that would make it funny or maybe my sense of humour is very visual, it’s just me being peculiar then lol
Thank you I will :) and apologies I think it didn’t land with me because of how I do humour like I said, it’s something I’ve learnt about myself in being very visual in what amuses me in that sense
Gee, I wonder who this is aimed at?
I wish they could all get to read it. The satire is so brilliant and would probably become reality in not-too-distant future.
Everyone, please share! It's so useful snd thought-provoking that I hope this piece is not behind a paywall.
It's not behind a paywall.
We want to keep our main work free, or at least available after a time of preview for paid subscribers.
That becomes easier, of course, the more people that do the monthly or annual tthing. And we are very grateful to them!
That was hilarious, and the point well taken. I find both positions (St. Bellarmine/Cajetan) to have issues, but this satire certainly accomplished its goal of pointing out the shortcomings of the latter.
Thanks Sean, glad you liked it. Did you read this?
https://www.wmreview.org/p/bellarmine-silveira
Thank you for sending. I’d have to reflect a bit more on da Silveira’s theory of “indirect magisterial approval,” by which he purports to equate a theologian receiving permission to print with magisterial endorsement. That seems problematic, since theologians advancing contradictory positions have all received such approbations. Consequently, it seems that da Silveira’s theory would introduce contradiction into the corpus of magisterial teaching.
Oh yes, it doesn't mean that. The idea - not his, you can find it in people like Vacant, Kleutgen etc, but older than that I think - definitely entails more than what you describe. You could try these for size, but they've not been reformatted for the new site yet:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/vacant-oum-chapter-iiib
https://www.wmreview.org/p/honorius-de-mattei-feser-i
It’s interesting that Catastrophe and The Leftovers would say that it’s obvious whether someone is a woman, underage, habitually insane, or unbaptized, but that the Code’s list includes two things that we simply cannot know - whether a person believes in the Faith or is schismatic. We just can’t know those two things without a future judgement by the cardinals, including those installed by Susan. In fact, we are able to know whether a person is a woman but only up until the moment our ever-faithful cardinals declare the person pope. Then we simply lose any ability to judge the person’s gender. We must wait until the day that the ever-faithful cardinals tell us what the person’s gender is, remembering that if such cardinals are excommunicated by Susan, we will be obligated to throw them under the bus.
And we must not forget another factor. Those who insist the question of gender is relevant are ultragenderists and should accept the obvious solution - to admit that we place way too much importance on the role of the pope and should just accept that neither the papacy nor the gender nor the religious beliefs of the pope really matter all that much. After all, the church is full of liturgical music experts, Protestant converts and lifelong Conservative Catholics, as well as progressive Catholics (often certified by no less than 12 years of Catholic education!) who are more than happy to tell us what is safe or unsafe to believe. Didn’t Jesus promise that the gates of hell would never overcome the liturgical music experts? Are we willing to believe that His promise has failed? Perish the thought.
It’s extremely funny but at the same time it’s not because it hits too close to reality..
LJC! Dear Mr. Wright, thank You very much this brilliant satire, in that the whole problem has been clarified!!! This clear and evidenced position originates from Sanctus Spiritus obviously. God bless You & Your Family! Best regards from one strictly susanvacantist ;)
No doubt, Pope Susan took her regnal name to honor Susan from the Council and all the Susans who have assiduously served the Spirit of Vatican II through their activism in their local parish councils.
Who’d have thought this satire would nearly be fulfilled in 2025?
Burke reveals transsexual priests “ordained” in conciliar church, with surgeries of “priests” allegedly not known until after ordination:
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/burkes-trans-nun-amnesia-how-a-cardinal?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Disagree here - we can tell that a women can never be Pope from Gods revealed will in Scripture, it is therefore valid for believers resting upon that authority and the authority from the in-dwelling Holy Spirit which is present in all believers to publicly declare a women whom is a Pope invalid and therefore not a legitimate Pope in the eyes of Heaven. I actually think the False Prophet could well be a women so if that were to be correct then one’s entire salvation could become dependent on making such a stand. You can’t replace Sola Scripture with Sola Magisterium which is what you are doing and is an error of Catholicism - if the pillars of the faith, which include Scripture, do not align in perfect harmony then we know what is being suggested is not from God so this would as I said instantly render a female Pope invalid as Scripture does not square with it.
This is satire, Darrell.
Problem is satire is supposed to make a valid point in a humorous way and the point this is trying to make just isn’t valid so it doesn’t fit the bill in my eyes
I don't think you've grasped thr context. Those who do have enjoyed it.
The point is that there are many who think a heretic can be Pope. This is satirising them, using the same arguments they make.
Re read it a bit and with you and kind of shoulder shrug, it is a little bit alien to my way of thinking that humour has its uses in a debate like this but kind of whatever but it’s also the medium for my money, this might be funny as a Blackadder esq skit but for me it’s the acting out that would make it funny or maybe my sense of humour is very visual, it’s just me being peculiar then lol
If you prefer something more systematic, try this for size.
https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiv-complete-commitment
Thank you I will :) and apologies I think it didn’t land with me because of how I do humour like I said, it’s something I’ve learnt about myself in being very visual in what amuses me in that sense