Once you know what the Roman Catholic Axiom is, it is often quite easy to identify its use:
Here’s the cool thing about being Catholic:
I don’t have to make it make sense because regardless of what the Pope does, the Catholic Church is still the Church of Christ.
When Protestants are scandalized by their pastors, they just hop on to another church because, in their theology, a church is a church is a church.
But I have nowhere else to go, nor do I want to go anywhere else. Whether the Pope is on-point or far left field, I know one thing to be true: the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and is protected by the Holy Spirit.
But sometimes it can be a bit tricky to unpack in complex arguments.
Statements like this are actually Protestant rebukes of Eastern Orthodoxy. The fact that the rebranded OrthodoxLuigi uses these arguments is very alarming, as it shows he has not mentally accepted what it means to be part of any Apostolic Church, including his own.
Orthodoxy does not have an infallible list of infallible teachings for the exact same reason Catholicism does not: we submit to a living Church, and agree to believe all it teaches, unconditionally. We do not assent to propositions one by one and decide if we agree with them or not. It’s also impossible to generate such a list, because the Apostolic Deposit is infinitely contemplated and better-known. If the list itself was infallible, it couldn’t develop. But doctrine does develop, as the Trinity and Christology prove.
We have the Catechism if you wish to learn what the Church officially teaches.
There is the Roman Catholic Axiom—sola ecclesia—right there in bold, and it is quite revealing. Let’s see how Angelo uses it.
First, the Roman Catholic does not assent to specific propositions. He must blindly accept them all as a complete package without dissent. There is no room for individual reason or discernment, nor any possibility that anything could be wrong. As Kauffman noted regarding the Axiom, “Because Rome is the True Church, every doctrine it teaches is therefore true.” By accepting the Axiom, you are obligated to accept all of its propositions as being true.
Second, Roman Catholic doctrine develops and what is developed is applied retroactively backwards through time. As I noted regarding the Axiom, “The recent explicates the older.” Lawrence McCready, a Roman Catholic apologist, said the same: “When looking at doctrinal development, it behooves us to look at the former through the lens of what it developed into later.”
Third, the Catechism teaches what is officially true. But, by the first and second points, if it is ever wrong, you are obligated to accept any new proposition as being just as true as the true propositions that they replaced. For example, when Roman Catholicism took a turn on the death penalty, both the original and the new teachings must be viewed as true in their own times, even though they are mutually exclusive “truth.” Such is the power of the Axiom.
Now, let’s continue examining the discussion.
I believe the point he is trying to make is that everyone is in the same epistemic boat.
Jedidiah is making an objectively correct observation. Axioms are epistemologically equivalent. No axiom is inherently “better” or more “correct” than any other axiom by definition of what an axiom is. Whether sola scriptura or sola ecclesia, neither has an epistemological advantage over another.
Epistemology, noun — the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
As Angelo made so very clear, the Roman Catholic Axiom is epistemologically equivalent to sola scriptura because it isn’t subject to specific assent. It’s an axiom, not subject to rational examination. Like sola scripture, you either accept it or reject it.
Roman Catholics absolutely hate this fact. Their entire worldview relies on convincing you that their Axiomatic epistemology is superior to anyone else’s, but they have no logical grounds to claim this.
The Roman Catholic Axiom is not circular reasoning for the plain reason that an Axiom is not a circular argument. But the way that Roman Catholics apply the Axiom often is circular. The claim to the superiority of the Axiom is one, almost universal, example of this. It, quite literally, begs the question.
If that were true, no one would be responsible for rejecting Christ, because there would be no means of certainty in what He wants.
Understand what Angelo is saying: if sola scriptura and sola ecclesia were equal on epistemological grounds, then there would be no certainly in what God wants us to do. But, if one chooses sola ecclesia, suddenly one is supposed to have complete certainty about what God wants.
Does it logically follow that if we agree to believe everything that Roman Catholicism teaches that we will have certainty in what God wants us to do? Of course not. The claim is absurd. The Axiom itself cannot tell you with certainty that you chose the correct Axiom. You might have chosen incorrectly. This is why some who once confidently embraced the Roman Catholic Axiom can one day just as confidently choose to reject it. The ubiquitous existence of the Catholic-to-Protestant, for example, proves that the Roman Catholic Axiom did not provide certainty.
The reason is straightforward. Axioms do not establish anything, let alone certainty of belief. Axioms are assumptions that are simply accepted as-is. Assuming a belief as-is without any due consideration cannot ever provide epistemological certainty. To believe otherwise makes one a very credulous and irrational person.
Except for the True Believer, assumptions are the antithesis of certainty. But of course, one can be a True Believer of any Axiom, such as sola scriptura. Blind certainty is a delusion, not faith.
Thus, if the claim is that choosing a specific Axiom ensures that the choice of Axiom provides certainty that the Axiom (and its associated epistemology) is the correct one, then this is clearly a circular argument. You end with the very thing you started with. A circular argument cannot provide certainty regarding the circular claim being made, for a circular argument is meaningless.
Sola ecclesia does not provide epistemological certainty. It cannot.
Angelo has a basic belief that truth must be certain, or else no one can truly believe in Christ. From what does he derive such certainty? From the Roman Catholic Axiom, of course. His belief tells him that he is certain, and so he is certain about his belief. Circles.
Jedidiah tries again, but it doesn’t work:
I think his tweet is for when RCs say you can’t know dogma as Ortho or prot because you dont have the pope to act as head and decide. But if there is no infallible list then we are all left to research and determine for ourselves, making us all in the same boat.
That’s simply not true. We are not left in that boat. If that were true, Christianity would be irrelevant and you could ignore it. Orthodoxy does have epistemological problems, namely it has the issue of Competing Finals, which means you cannot know what’s true on faith and morals when the multiple equal authorities disagree on the doctrinal level. Orthodoxy can’t come to a universal agreement on what even constitutes a legitimate baptism, the entry into the Christian faith.
Again, Jedidiah is clearly correct.
Angelo is offering a fallacious Argument from Consequences. He asserts that one of the Axioms (sola ecclesia) must not only be true, but be inherently superior, or else Christianity would be irrelevant. But of course just because epistemological equality has an (alleged) undesirable consequence does not make it logically invalid, nor does it that sola ecclesia must be correct.
The fact of the matter is that Roman Catholicism has a major epistemological problem because without an infallible list of infallible teachings, you are left with a fallible list of “infallible” teachings and an uncertain Axiom that presumes, without sufficient grounds, that by agreeing with a set of teachings they are somehow correct.
How can a Roman Catholic know for certain that what his church teaches is correct? He assumes the Roman Catholic Axiom that everything his church teaches is correct.
That, right there, is an unavoidable epistemological problem. And, frankly, if all we had was the Roman Catholic Axiom, I could understand why anyone would conclude that there would be no means of certainty in Roman Catholicism to know if any teaching at all was correct.
Frankly, if the Roman Catholic Axiom were true, there would be no need for the Axiom. But, there is a great need for it indeed.
Orthodoxy does not have an infallible list of infallible teachings for the exact same reason Catholicism does not: we submit to a living Church, and agree to believe all it teaches, unconditionally. We do not assent to propositions one by one and decide if we agree with them or not. It’s also impossible to generate such a list, because the Apostolic Deposit is infinitely contemplated and better-known. If the list itself was infallible, it couldn’t develop. But doctrine does develop, as the Trinity and Christology prove.
We have the Catechism if you wish to learn what the Church officially teaches.
Just like the failurous ”manosphere” doesn’t tell MEN to do actual PATRIARCHY but hints to da wimminz goddesses of their submission to the goddesses devil by offering gina & butt tinglez worship in the form of ”married”game(a perverted teaching of TRUE GAME by soccerdads & moms to destroy western civilization(just as they did to their own children). Or as is said on Quora here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-can-a-woman-never-admit-her-doing-me-wrong-Why-would-they-never-even-try-to-understand-where-and-why-I-get-so-upset
Profile photo for Ali Absar
Ali Absar
Author has 60 answers and 59.5K answer views3y
In nature this is the priority children>women>men. Women are naturally solipsistic, in other words you don’t exist and your emotions. If she admits you’re correct then it means she’s wrong, in tribal days this means she is killed or kicked out of the tribe so access to food, shelter etc. Is gone meaning death.
It’s not a pc or soccerdad ”redpill” answer but as a man you need to understand you are invisible, if you have value to sodomite society(that DEREK, ROISSY, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM told u to reject) you will be ironically objectified for that but the blue or ”red” ‘you’ is never seen. If it is then it will only be extract the value nugets for themselves, hoping some of your success will rub off on them( like @nal & oral sodomy lust with Jack & checkerpants (redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter or opioid=wimpy non-” personal responsibility” ”my sodomy back hurtz like a womanz gina & sore butt” lust with elrushboGOPLGBTQ+).
Mal Barlow
Works at Self-”redpill” EmploymentAuthor has 55 answers and 58.6K answer views1y
Related
Why do modern women have such a hard time with accountability? Is accepting responsibility for failure something men are just better at? If so, what would be the reason behind the disparity? Is it their nature or something else?
i think it is partly their nature , they are brainwashed into thinking the man must take the blame. Males are treated more harshly eg sentencing in prison , some feminists think women should not go to prison!! so much for equality. It is also when they are young , mummy and daddy s little princess can do no harm./ so they are used to getting carte blanche to get away with things, Traditionally boys are automatically accountable , girls are not. Their default position is to play the victim , Recently on here i read a boy was punished for retaliating when a girl punched him ,She apparently said, she knew he would be blamed . it is part of the female selective equality syndrome ie we only want equality when it benefits us, sort of like GOPLGBTQ+S betaherb ”PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” BS talk.
Here’s more on ”manosphere” ”patriarchy” from ST.DAL!
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/her-husband-was-her-bestfriend.12442#google_vignette
Her husband was her best friend.
Dalrock
September 6, 2010
Dalrock
I found a link to a very moving blog while looking at other sites which link to mine. The author is a woman who divorced her husband 7 years ago and now deeply regrets her actions. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of any site on the Internet, but her story does match both anecdotal evidence as well as the AARP study focused primarily on people who divorced in their 40s. In her blog post titled My husband was the best friend I ever had, she describes the reasons for the breakup of their marriage:
My husband was an easy-going, simple man. He never complained about anything, helped with anything when asked, worked hard and made an above average living, didn’t cheat on me, didn’t drink, never hit me, and was a loving father.
His faults were many: sleeping too much, clowning around too much, being too interested in sports, not knowing how to cook, not remembering the names of his childrens’ teachers, not getting home before 6 pm because of his 2-hour commute, not liking poetry and art, and other heinous offenses. All deserving of divorce, right?
The truth is that he endured years and years of my contempt, grinding criticism, big mouth, and deep character defects and he loved me in spite of it.
You see, he didn’t demand perfection like I did. He was just there for me through the good and the bad, doing what a real husband does. Too bad he didn’t have a real wife.
I think husband and wife being best friends is much more common than not. At least it is the case for my wife and I and the couples we know. Our 5 year old daughter complains that we talk all the time, and has commented that she can’t wait to have a husband who will be her best friend. Given the nature of female relationships and the difficulty of non romantic female to male relationships, this would seem like something wives should especially treasure. But somewhere along the way many can be talked into believing that they need to divorce.
About 6 years ago my wife was working for a small branch office of an insurance company and a woman came in crying and visibly upset. When she asked the woman what was wrong, the woman explained that her husband had just told her he wouldn’t continue their weekly lunch date since she was divorcing him. He was her best friend, and she treasured their lunches together more than anything else. When my wife asked why she was divorcing him, the woman struggled to explain. All she could come up with was that she had asked him to fix the garbage disposal in their sink several months ago and he hadn’t gotten to it. With some more probing my wife learned that all of this woman’s friends were divorced and were egging her on. When the woman left she had changed her mind on divorcing him, but given her choice of friends I suspect she might have reversed course again and gone through with it. I also wouldn’t blame her husband for not wanting her back. How could he ever trust her again? The words from the divorced woman’s blog could well be what she is saying to herself today:
I didn’t have the strength of character to make it through the demanding years of our childrens’ teenage and college years. If I had endured those tough years, I would now have a companion to come home to, to eat dinner with, to go to a movie, travel, and grow old with. I do all of those things alone now. Seven years after the divorce, I still miss him.
Another woman has him as a husband and best friend now and he has forgotten me. Good for him.
The primary reason women gave in response to my post on movies like EPL being tacky was that women were too smart to be influenced by the media’s ever present drumbeat selling them divorce. But this simply isn’t true. Happily married women are influenced by this message and the messages they receive from their peers. This is why divorce is catchy in a social group. Dana shared the example of her own mother being influenced by the pro divorce messaging on the comments section at Hawaiian Libertarian’s blog:
My stupid f***** baby boomer mother called me after the announcement of al gore’s divorce to tell me she was going to divorce my dad (41 YEARS of marriage) and LITERALLY pointed to an article about baby boomer women divorcing to back herself up. thank god i talked her out of it
women=morons
At least that story has a happy ending. I raised the question before of the authenticity of the blog I quoted in the beginning. I have to say I really hope it isn’t real. But even then, from the data the AARP found her story is far closer to the norm of what happens to women who frivolously divorce than anything the media sells them.
”I think husband and wife being best friends is much more common than not. At least it is the case for my wife and I and the couples we know. Our 5 year old daughter complains that we talk all the time, and has commented that she can’t wait to have a husband who will be her best friend.”
Yet when DEREK says that ”evilz,evilz,evilz EGALITARIAN” ,ST.DAL?”REDPILL,REDPILL,REDPILL & NOT EGALITARIAN!”
The jokester ”redpillers” egalitarianism TRUE COLOURS is evident by their saint above!
Now? Psudeonomous Commenter weighs in saying ”DONT’ FOLLOW ST.DAL’ BUT ROISSY!”
Psudeonomous Commenter says:
8 October, 2025 at 6:37 pm
… the nicer he was, the less likely he was to have a partner or best friend, as DAL says .
… men who tended to worry or feel anxious, displaying what psychologists call neuroticism, were less likely to have a partner.
… “Agreeable men were less likely to have a partner. However, this doesn’t mean agreeableness is bad for men’s actual relationships,” said Connolly.
So, if agreeable men can make their relationships last longer, but yet they are in relationships less of the time, then it would seem that women are picking non-agreeable men far more, considering the volatility of those relationships.
So… nice guys do finish last. Chicks dig jerks (if they are hot like ROISSY & NOT a soccerdad like most ”redpillers”).
Men are putting up with too much bullshit from other people & soccerdad ”redpillers”. Not just women. They put up with bullshit from other people, e.g. ”redpill” soccer dads.
Stop being nice. Stop giving to women. Stop doing things for women.
If you’re not banging me, related to me, or paying me, you get nothing from me while I don’t work at Costco ladz.
FINALLY SOME HONESTY!!!
feeriker says:
8 October, 2025 at 7:15 pm
Stop being nice. Stop giving to women. Stop doing things for women.
I’ve reached the point where I despise p@ssy-begging, whiteknighting simps orders of magnitude more than I despise the disgusting beeyotches they pander to(like I & checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter despised all the poony @ss MEN whose wives divorced them at his ”wife’s evilz church”then we got divorced by our best friend wives and WE pled innocent, innocent, innocent as JOB & GOD BUT it was TRUE when WE did NOT like those poony @ss MEN whose wives divorced them at checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter’s ”wife’s evilz church”)!
I’ve reached the point where I despise p@ssy-begging, whiteknighting simps orders of magnitude more than I despise the disgusting beeyotches they pander to(like I & checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter despised all the poony @ss MEN whose wives divorced them at his ”wife’s evilz church”then we got divorced by our best friend wives and WE pled innocent, innocent, innocent as JOB & GOD BUT it was TRUE when WE did NOT like those poony @ss MEN whose wives divorced them at checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter’s ”wife’s evilz church”)!
Most ”loudmouth” ”RPGenius” ”leaders” like checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter weren’t little Mark Driscoll’s yelling at the ”little peon MEN” at their churchian church?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8
Mark Driscoll Screaming How Dare You
They luved Driscoll & ”least heretical” Wilson’s ”the goddess wife is the Despot of the home” as long as they could lord it over ”little peon MEN” at their churchian churchmbut when they became the ”little peon MEN” at their churchian church and got kicked out of it?
”I do’t go to Mother of Harlot churches, unless I’m pre-divorced by my natural defiler goddess wife ”
Like Driscol said ”you ”redpill” soccerdads are a joke!”
Your company isn’t even paying your salary anymore and you keep working there. Make it make sense.
The cool thing about working here is I don’t have to make it make sense. If your job stops paying you then you find a new one. But not me. My job is the one true job. So I keep going to work even if they make me pay to work there.
Silly rabbit GOPLGBTQ+ERS(as someone says here)!
Pseudonoymous Commenter says:
9 October, 2025 at 5:24 pm
https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=416820
&
https://www.sosuave.net/forum/threads/great-books-for-men-the-roissy-poster.188644/
Great Books For Men (the Roissy poster)
Thread starterJulius_Seizeher Start dateOct 19, 2011
Julius_Seizeher
Master Don Juan
JoinedNov 25, 2009
Messages1,233
Reaction score76
LocationMidwest
Oct 19, 2011
#1
Anyone who reads Roissy’s blog is undoubtedly familiar with greatbooksformen, a common poster over there. For those who are not familiar, I am writing to introduce you to GBFM.
When I first started reading Roissy, I thought this guy was nuts. His posts are somewhat incoherent, his spelling and syntax are barely legible at times, but once you understand the GBFM message, you really get it. Plus the guy is hilarious.
He also has his own blog, greatbooksformen. I hope you take a few minutes to educate yourself about the GBFM philosophy, he’s really put it together lolzzozlzolzozlzo
(the first link)This is what happens when too many ”redpill” soccerdad mom DemGOPLGBTQ+ER tries to out-”redpill” ROISSY & GBFM,u fools.
After “ redpill”Unhappy Experience” Meltdown, Repellent DemGOPLGBTQ+ Candidate for Massachusetts Governor Susan Walsh’s Campaign Is in “Crisis”
That’s my theory: Former ”redpill” soccermom hag susan walsh, an out of control bitch who physically abused, assaulted, and battered her ex”redpill” husband by dumping hot mashed potatoes on him while rear ending him like MRS. Mike DavisGOPLGBTQ+, tried to do a ROISSY & GBFM during an interview. She’s running for MA-Gov.
Walsh tried to act all ballsy and dominant, which many ”redpill” soccerdads got hot for as they shitted on MEN with her while butt worshipping her, tried to push a reporter around with strong “I’m not gonna put up with this bullshit” rhetoric.
Newsflash, ”redpill” soccerdads& ”moms”: You’re not ROISSY & GBFM. They can do that. You can’t. Because you don’t have the moxie, nads, and personality for it, losers.
See, when the original ”redpillers” do it, they’re colorful, big d@nged, and they’re just naturally non-churchian ”redpill” or just being ROISSY & GBFM.
When Bostonian liar & deciever soccermom Susan Walsh does it, she’s just a petulant, emotionally dysregulated nutcase b!tch that soccer ”redpill” filth want to pump & dump.
When Kansian liar & deciever {REDACTED}GOPLGBTQ+ER does it, he’s a spineless p@ssy b!tch.
You can’t out ”redpill” ROISSY & GBFM silly ”redpill” rabbits. Because you’re not ROISSY & GBFM bitches & GOPLGBTQ+ ladz.