I’ve noticed many posts on this platform where people are caught in the trap of the Hegelian Dialectic, likely without realizing it. Here’s a straightforward breakdown of why this “devil’s logic” is dangerous to faith and truth:

The Hegelian Dialectic—a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—promotes compromise as a path to truth, dismissing absolutes and encouraging moral relativism. This philosophy is foundational to the Western political system, most clearly seen in U.S. politics, where manufactured conflicts lead to “synthesized” solutions that move society further from objective truth. By manipulating opposing sides, social engineers steer society toward pre-determined goals, masking evil as good and vice versa.

For Catholics, this mindset is incompatible with the Faith, which stands on unchanging truth, not compromise. The Hegelian approach weakens resistance to sin and opens the door to moral decay. True faith is grounded in the absolute teachings of Christ and His Church, not in the relativism of worldly systems.

Define "real Catholic."

Wait ... what?  So what happened to your "manifest herersy" SV position?  You've just regurgitated the Salza position.  Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι profess to be Catholic and have not been "cut off from the Church by legitimate ecclesiastical authority".

This is yet one more example of people so desperate to justify their desire to vote for Trump that they end up contradicting their own principles.  Of course, you'll continue to hold both these to be true ... since that's the inevitable result of error, a mental schizophrenia.

Same is true of the EENS question, where most SVs hold that V2 eccleisology is heretical ... but then promote the same ecclesiology by touting Suprema Haec ... which V2 rightly footnotes as reference for its own ecclesiology, and actually hold the same ecclesiology themselves by holding that non-Catholics can be saved (and therefore can be in the Church).

I don’t think you read what I wrote correctly.

I did not say “profess to be Catholic”, I said “profess the true faith”. Enormous difference. Paul VI, JPII, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, Biden, Pelozi, people who think abortion and sodomy are compatible with Catholicism, etc. don’t profess the true faith, hence they’re not Catholics. It doesn’t matter one bit if they think themselves to be Catholics, they’re not.


BTW: I’m not a big Trump fanboy, but I’m praying he does the right thing and obeys God’s Holy Will. You should too.

In better times that definition would have sufficed and I would have agreed with you. Today your definition is useless and adrift.

Unfortunately, self-identified "Catholics" have in large doses imbibed the poison of ʝʊdɛօ-Luciferian subjective relativism.

As best I can discern, only the pre-V2 past stands as "legitimate ecclesiastical authority."

What pre-V2 Saint could find "legitimate ecclesiastical authority" today? in Jorge the heretic? in the SSPX management? in Josh987654321/MarkM/Siscoe/Salza? in Vigano?

Because of that, your once-accurate definition is a historical vestige adrift from today's reality.

I hope Ladislaus read my reply. I would loathe to be thought of as a non sedevacantist. 

Wait ... what?  So what happened to your "manifest herersy" SV position?  You've just regurgitated the Salza position.  Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι profess to be Catholic and have not been "cut off from the Church by legitimate ecclesiastical authority".

This is yet one more example of people so desperate to justify their desire to vote for Trump that they end up contradicting their own principles.  Of course, you'll continue to hold both these to be true ... since that's the inevitable result of error, a mental schizophrenia.

Same is true of the EENS question, where most SVs hold that V2 eccleisology is heretical ... but then promote the same ecclesiology by touting Suprema Haec ... which V2 rightly footnotes as reference for its own ecclesiology, and actually hold the same ecclesiology themselves by holding that non-Catholics can be saved (and therefore can be in the Church).