Author Topic: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left (Read 11066 times)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #35 on:** November 16, 2022, 04:39:00 PM »

Quote from: Cornelius on November 16, 2022, 04:05:48 PM

What do you think of MHTS, Bishop Sanborn, and their whole cassiciacuм thesis? I find it very... contradictory.

Lad is all for the Thesis, specifically Fr. Chazal's variation of it.

My take: I, personally, am unsure. I think it's a plausible means to explain HOW to get out of this rut with the Vacancy, but I find it difficult to accept as a position in itself. As with MHTS's version you're still saying that the See is Vacant (hence their dogmatic non una cuм position), but that Francis & co. are basically "Pope elects" with the temporal power of the Office; whereas Chazal's is saying that the See is occupied, but the spiritual authority is impounded.

At the end of the day, you're still either a sedeplenist or sedevacantist.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #36 on:** November 16, 2022, 06:48:55 PM »

Quote from: Cornelius on November 16, 2022, 12:53:14 PM

Yeah I agree about the basketball court. Everybody needs exercise. If I had a full building like that, I would definitely make a gym at least (not a basketball guy personally, though). Plus, if they ever have to move for whatever reason, that building adds value to the land, no matter what it contains.

Honestly, people that criticize the basketball court almost seem jealous. It's like, what's next? We are gonna criticize religious for having refrigerators instead of cooling cellars?

Agreed. There are things to criticize the Dimonds about, but having a basketball court is not one of them. I do remember in one of their videos that Peter Dimond mentioned that his high school played against Kobe Bryant's high school (and Peter was on his school basketball team), which is pretty cool.

Cornelius · « **Reply #37 on:** November 16, 2022, 07:05:19 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 16, 2022, 04:39:00 PM

Lad is all for the Thesis, specifically Fr. Chazal's variation of it.

My take: I, personally, am unsure. I think it's a plausible means to explain HOW to get out of this rut with the Vacancy, but I find it difficult to accept as a position in itself. As with MHTS's version you're still saying that the See is Vacant (hence their dogmatic non una cuм position), but that Francis & co. are basically "Pope elects" with the temporal power of the Office; whereas Chazal's is saying that the See is occupied, but the spiritual authority is impounded.

At the end of the day, you're still either a sedeplenist or sedevacantist.

Honestly, I think the cassiciacuм thesis is completely schizophrenic. One side of the mouth, one says that, due to the election being valid itself, the Cardinals/Bishops and even the "Pope-elect" must also be valid, yet out of the other side of one's mouth, one says that the "Pope-elect" isn't valid. I have listened to Despocito's explanations. I understand it, but it simply doesn't make sense. It's completely inconsistent and contradictory, and, frankly, highly schismatic.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #38 on:** November 16, 2022, 07:16:12 PM »

Cardinal Siri Thesis and after that no worries.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** November 16, 2022, 09:00:55 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 16, 2022, 04:39:00 PM

At the end of the day, you're still either a sedeplenist or sedevacantist.

See, not really ... sedeprivationism/sedeimpoundism means that you're both ... but in different respects.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left (Read 11066 times)

DigitalLogos

Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left

Änσnymσus

Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left

Cornelius

Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left

Änσnymσus

Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left

Ladislaus

Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left