Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: bodeens on June 10, 2022, 02:16:44 AM
-
This most interesting thing about this debate is that it is a 1P5/Meaning of Catholic person (he is speckzo and Jeremiah Bannister's friend). It is a low cost way for MoC to debate MHFM without directly losing credibility, since they can't afford to place their brand on the line. All of the recent anti sede talk from Bannister is leading up to this for sure. I don't know what MoC was thinking with this lol.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zzT0He4I0tg
Something tells me this isn't the last from MoC vs MHFM. I figure the Dimonds accepted this
Because they realized it was a 1P5/MoC proxy debate and I assume Bannister is on their radar (he was in contact with them at one point IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong). Another note is look at how Pinesap focuses on optics in this debate: Rather than ecclesiology, I think sedevacantism's weakest point is optics and 1P5 sees an opportunity here.
-
There is a great section on Suprema Haec in this, btw.
-
I listened to the first minute or two, not sure I could take much more of the same old thing that starts out with invincible ignorance.
That term should be completely banished and replaced 100% of the time in thought and word with PPIX's words: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion."
It amazes me that Pope Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, which is about the promotion of false doctrines, is itself most often used for promoting the false doctrine of salvation for the invincibly ignorant.
-
I listened to the first minute or two, not sure I could take much more of the same old thing that starts out with invincible ignorance.
I agree. II (invincible ignorance) should be stricken from the Catholic vocabulary. That argument from II implies clear-cut Pelagianism. Ignorance can never be salvific, but merely exculpatory. Period. If one is inculpably ignorant, then the ignorance is no sin, but that says absolutely nothing about what is required for salvation, supernatural faith, charity, etc. You could be as invincibly ignorant as anyone who's ever lived, but if you have no supernatural faith, you cannot be saved. There's this hidden (or not-so-hidden) Pelagian idea that unless you actively and explicitly do something evil, you are saved by default. That is not true. On account of Original Sin, we are lost by default.
-
I listened to the first minute or two, not sure I could take much more of the same old thing that starts out with invincible ignorance.
That term should be completely banished and replaced 100% of the time in thought and word with PPIX's words: "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion."
It amazes me that Pope Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, which is about the promotion of false doctrines, is itself most often used for promoting the false doctrine of salvation for the invincibly ignorant.
Yeah I got about 8 minutes in and knew this was ground that MHFM have already thoroughly covered on the topic.
-
I agree. II (invincible ignorance) should be stricken from the Catholic vocabulary. That argument from II implies clear-cut Pelagianism. Ignorance can never be salvific, but merely exculpatory. Period. If one is inculpably ignorant, then the ignorance is no sin, but that says absolutely nothing about what is required for salvation, supernatural faith, charity, etc. You could be as invincibly ignorant as anyone who's ever lived, but if you have no supernatural faith, you cannot be saved. There's this hidden (or not-so-hidden) Pelagian idea that unless you actively and explicitly do something evil, you are saved by default. That is not true. On account of Original Sin, we are lost by default.
It's even worse than this with hardcore IIers. Not converting or knowing about the Catholic Faith is a ticket to heaven while being in the Church puts you in a fewness of the saved lottery. The idea promoted by IIers is that people who have actively posessed Faith, Hope and Charity are less preferred by God. This guy's entire debate is based on trying to not say this.
-
It's even worse than this with hardcore IIers. Not converting or knowing about the Catholic Faith is a ticket to heaven while being in the Church puts you in a fewness of the saved lottery. The idea promoted by IIers is that people who have actively posessed Faith, Hope and Charity are less preferred by God. This guy's entire debate is based on trying to not say this.
This anti-logic is astounding to me. I remember when I first grasped the sede position that I would pose the question to others "why be a Catholic at all if I can be saved as a Neoplatonist or a pagan?" I mean hey, if that's true, I'll go right back to following Plato and Plotinus, it's a lot easier /sarcasm :facepalm:
Such a position, honestly, just shows a lack of supernatural faith. They look at God as if He is looking for every reason to throw us into hell; but then look at infidels, et al, as if He is looking for every reason to save them. When in reality He is looking for the latter in both cases, with the expectation that you do everything to follow His precepts, not man's.
-
This anti-logic is astounding to me. I remember when I first grasped the sede position that I would pose the question to others "why be a Catholic at all if I can be saved as a Neoplatonist or a pagan?" I mean hey, if that's true, I'll go right back to following Plato and Plotinus, it's a lot easier /sarcasm :facepalm:
Such a position, honestly, just shows a lack of supernatural faith. They look at God as if He is looking for every reason to throw us into hell; but then look at infidels, et al, as if He is looking for every reason to save them. When in reality He is looking for the latter in both cases, with the expectation that you do everything to follow His precepts, not man's.
See this is the thing, when Frankie says not to convert the Orthodox, Lutherans etc it's because of this. When people say EENS isn't the primary issue or that it isn't THE primary explicit heresy of VII their eyes aren't focused on how the dogma interacts with what the modernists do and say.
-
I decided to give it more of a listen on the drive home. And man, it is a frustrating debate. This Pinesap guy does not understand that it doesn't matter if there's the hypothetical one individual with all of the proper virtues and disposition, or many, they still will not be saved without water baptism. It won't happen, Br. Michael explicated that through infallible pronouncements on the necessity of water baptism, and still he persists with the point. :facepalm:
In his persistence, he is implying that God can contradict Himself, which is blasphemy. God specified in John 3:5 the necessity of water baptism, any exceptions He makes to that point is a contradiction of what He has already instituted and proclaimed, which is impossible. God cannot be contradicted.
-
Gave the debate a full watch and I have an immediate thought about why pinesap would debate the Dimonds instead of an explicit BoDer.
An explicit BoDer would have destroyed pinesap more definitively in a sense. He couldn't have hidden in the way he did because he tries to use Trent how Fr. Jenkins (or a strict Aquinas BoDer) would have defended explicit BoD, the Dimonds couldn't capitalize on the greatest contradiction in his position because they believe BoD is heretical.
The debate between pinesap and an explicit BoDer would be...
1) Explicit BoDer attacks loose EENS and say that Trent only taught explicit faith and that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation.
2) pinesap word salad about Pius IX/XII yada yada
3) Explicit BoDer says sure whatever (he can accept or deny what pinesap's premise, depends on if he wants to play word games or not) but Trent infallibly defined BoD as explicit
4) pinesap is trapped (there are a few lines of argumentation from here that work nicely and he can't really do anything at this point)
Debate over. There are a couple of intermediary steps I won't reveal because I would prefer an element of surprise if pinesap ever debates me on "implicit faith" ;);););)
Worth noting another pinesap position
As a new convert from Orthodoxy, a reverent Novus Ordo is beautiful. To me it's more preferable to well reknown Eastern Churches' liturgies.
-
Another interesting dimension to this debate is it cements AF (America First movement) as a Novus Ordo apologist group, which already was true with Milo/Nick connections as well as Bannister/speckzo but with pinesap groyper debating sedes and Dimondites (other EENSers soon?!) they will need to somehow reconcile anti-globalism with the NWO magisterium of their antichurch.
-
Another interesting dimension to this debate is it cements AF (America First movement) as a Novus Ordo apologist group, which already was true with Milo/Nick connections as well as Bannister/speckzo but with pinesap groyper debating sedes and Dimondites (other EENSers soon?!) they will need to somehow reconcile anti-globalism with the NWO magisterium of their antichurch.
Speckzo is a total heretic and hypocrite. On 30 May he stated on his telegram: "it's also not acceptable to say Vatican II is heretical or illicit. By doing so, you are essentially calling Christ a liar and implying that the gates of hell have prevailed." He condemns himself, because the most viewed page on his Youtube channel, which is also on the front page of it, calls Vatican II heretical: https://youtu.be/ZppBVICHbP4?t=3519 (https://youtu.be/ZppBVICHbP4?t=3519)
It's not surprising the AF "groyper" movement is largely gravitating to the Vatican II sect. They are very focused on "optics" and being appealing to mainstream neo-cons. So unfortunately human respect blinds them to the full truth. Being a "radtrad" isn't "good optics", so they have taken heretics like Lofton and Bannister for their teachers in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.
-
It's not surprising the AF "groyper" movement is largely gravitating to the Vatican II sect. They are very focused on "optics" and being appealing to mainstream neo-cons. So unfortunately human respect blinds them to the full truth. Being a "radtrad" isn't "good optics", so they have taken heretics like Lofton and Bannister for their teachers in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.
These men are not Catholics, they lack supernatural faith and hate the truth. They're appealing to a trend in order to bolster their own following. That's why they constantly contradict themselves and blatantly lie about Church teachings, because the truth is not in them.
It's honestly really depressing to see how widespread this is among so-called "traditionalists" these days. I had my suspicions that something wasn't right, but, lately I've come to the realization of just how bad things are.
Truly, "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" [Luke 18:8]
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]
-
These men are not Catholics, they lack supernatural faith and hate the truth. They're appealing to a trend in order to bolster their own following. That's why they constantly contradict themselves and blatantly lie about Church teachings, because the truth is not in them.
It's honestly really depressing to see how widespread this is among so-called "traditionalists" these days. I had my suspicions that something wasn't right, but, lately I've come to the realization of just how bad things are.
Truly, "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" [Luke 18:8]
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]
It seems they turn to Catholicism to support their political views and give them a religious veneer. They care not for the truth.
-
They're appealing to a trend in order to bolster their own following.
This seems to be why speckzo hasn't deleted the most viewed video on his channel which he now condemns as heretical. He values video views and having a large following more than the truth. Just like his leader Nicholas Fuentes.
-
but Trent infallibly defined BoD as explicit
Excellent, excellent point.
-
AF (America First movement) as a Novus Ordo apologist group
I think most of the AF movement is by protestant, pro-Israel, new-agers. Look at people like Gen Flynn, Trump, and much of the alt media...they are all into new age crystals, weird pagan symbology, "everyone love each other", "peace on earth", NWO ecuмenism. They drip with sappy, sentimentalist "spirituality".
-
I think most of the AF movement is by protestant, pro-Israel, new-agers. Look at people like Gen Flynn, Trump, and much of the alt media...they are all into new age crystals, weird pagan symbology, "everyone love each other", "peace on earth", NWO ecuмenism. They drip with sappy, sentimentalist "spirituality".
That is not the AF movement. The AF movement refers to Nicholas Fuentes, Scott Greer and others. One of the main tenets of this movement is to be anti-Israel.
-
Ok, my bad. I'll look them up.
-
That is not the AF movement. The AF movement refers to Nicholas Fuentes, Scott Greer and others. One of the main tenets of this movement is to be anti-Israel.
Yes, I guess if you're not a millenial or zoomer best way to describe AF is "Novus Ordo Pat Buchanan that is solid on cօռspιʀαcιҽs and Israel". I do like Buchanan FWIW and think he was one of the few to see the circuмstances RE: globalization. I think almost all problems with AF could be sorted out by just being Traditional Catholic, well worth praying for these guys because the True Faith would give them what they, like anyone else needs. I think a lot of the ontics are just downstream of them being a political rather than spiritual movement, and in that sense I cannot blame them because they are in the NO. Most young men are completely deceived regarding religion.
-
Most young men are completely deceived regarding religion.
Ain't that the truth. I recently had someone message me on Goodreads (of all places) inquiring about Christianity due to their own despair, thanks to reading Nietzsche. He aligns, politically, with me on a lot of issues. Hopefully I got him on the right track with my book recommendations, because otherwise he was looking toward the Eastern "Orthodox" probably because they "look" traditional and masculine, rather than being the true Faith. He's definitely been in my intentions.
-
Ain't that the truth. I recently had someone message me on Goodreads (of all places) inquiring about Christianity due to their own despair, thanks to reading Nietzsche. He aligns, politically, with me on a lot of issues. Hopefully I got him on the right track with my book recommendations, because otherwise he was looking toward the Eastern "Orthodox" probably because they "look" traditional and masculine, rather than being the true Faith. He's definitely been in my intentions.
Said an Ave:pray:
-
Although I didn't agree with Pinesaps position in the debate he did bring up some good points about how Dimonds are not consistent with their methods. For instance Dimonds would call the post V2 Antipopes heretics for doing such and such a thing but not apply those same methods to their predecessors. You could tell Peter put his foot in his mouth about this around the 42-43 minute mark because he realized he made a boo boo and Pinesap smelled blood and went for it but then the tape "mysteriously" cut out shortly after. But Pinesap ultimately had to stick to the topic and of course since he's incorrect on the topic he lost in the end. It's this very inconsistency of Dimonds that has had former Dimondites or Sedes of certain stripes call some or all of the Papal Claimants from Pius IX and on Antipopes.
Other than that they were arguing in circles on some points and I don't even think the implicit BODers even understand their position lol. It sounds like what they're TRYING to say is that if God sees something about someone etc. that He will make them Catholic BEFORE they die not AFTER or DURING their death (although Pinesap stupidly said this.) Basically a death bed conversion right before death but they can't seem to make that point properly and keep talking around that point without hitting the target.
-
Quote from: EWPJ (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=67602.msg829666#msg829666) 6/14/2022, 10:12:54 PM
Although I didn't agree with Pinesaps position in the debate he did bring up some good points about how Dimonds are not consistent with their methods. For instance Dimonds would call the post V2 Antipopes heretics for doing such and such a thing but not apply those same methods to their predecessors. You could tell Peter put his foot in his mouth about this around the 42-43 minute mark because he realized he made a boo boo and Pinesap smelled blood and went for it but then the tape "mysteriously" cut out shortly after. But Pinesap ultimately had to stick to the topic and of course since he's incorrect on the topic he lost in the end. It's this very inconsistency of Dimonds that has had former Dimondites or Sedes of certain stripes call some or all of the Papal Claimants from Pius IX and on Antipopes.
Other than that they were arguing in circles on some points and I don't even think the implicit BODers even understand their position lol. It sounds like what they're TRYING to say is that if God sees something about someone etc. that He will make them Catholic BEFORE they die not AFTER or DURING their death (although Pinesap stupidly said this.) Basically a death bed conversion right before death but they can't seem to make that point properly and keep talking around that point without hitting the target.
I think that's the biggest problem with what pinesap's saying and Br. Peter didn't capitalize enough. I think pinesap internally held
1) you MUST be Catholic before you die and had to change tactics because
2) he simultaneously held this is BoD, and not a conversion
Br. Peter's argument could have been:
1) At what point in time, according to your position, is a conversion a "BoD"?
2) pinesap word salad
3) Ask him to establish goalposts
4) he can't objectively delineate between these two things because he trapped himself. They can't say the conversion happens on the death bed because that is the Dimondite position and it undermines ALL forms of BoD.
I think Br. Peter could have also asked him to define BoD and contrast this with Aquinas' definition and worked through to this point as well. It almost seems as though he underestimated pinesap. Definitely the weakest Dimondite debate performance.
-
Although I didn't agree with Pinesaps position in the debate he did bring up some good points about how Dimonds are not consistent with their methods. For instance Dimonds would call the post V2 Antipopes heretics for doing such and such a thing but not apply those same methods to their predecessors. You could tell Peter put his foot in his mouth about this around the 42-43 minute mark because he realized he made a boo boo and Pinesap smelled blood and went for it but then the tape "mysteriously" cut out shortly after. But Pinesap ultimately had to stick to the topic and of course since he's incorrect on the topic he lost in the end. It's this very inconsistency of Dimonds that has had former Dimondites or Sedes of certain stripes call some or all of the Papal Claimants from Pius IX and on Antipopes.
I don't see the inconsistency in this case. All of the theologians pinesap kept referencing, such as Fenton, promote the exact issue that Br. Peter was trying to show him was erroneous, namely, that non-Catholics can be saved.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/msgr-fenton-book-the-catholic-church-and-salvation/
For example, I have seen one such inconsistency on their part when it comes to NFP, where they note that Pope Pius XII taught it was permissible (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-pius-xii-father-feeney-the-dogma/)and refer to him as in error for the teaching. Yet, if Pius XII, as a legitimate Pope, is protected on matters of faith and morals, then him saying NFP is permissible (in certain situations, mind you) couldn't possibly be heretical nor would it contradict Pius XI's condemnation of "frustrating" the marital act, of which, I don't believe NFP can be said to be a "frustration", maybe an abuse of the natural infertile period of a woman's cycle, but not a frustration. But they object to that and say it was fallible because it was a public speech. Even though it, by their estimation, directly contradicts Pius XI's statements on the matter of birth control; therefore, to be consistent, Pius XII should be considered a non-Pope and heretic because of this act of manifest heresy.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/#3
As for the cut in the debate, I don't believe that was malicious, but a technical difficulty, as both admitted it shortly after the fact.
-
I don't see the inconsistency in this case. All of the theologians pinesap kept referencing, such as Fenton, promote the exact issue that Br. Peter was trying to show him was erroneous, namely, that non-Catholics can be saved.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/msgr-fenton-book-the-catholic-church-and-salvation/
For example, I have seen one such inconsistency on their part when it comes to NFP, where they note that Pope Pius XII taught it was permissible (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-pius-xii-father-feeney-the-dogma/)and refer to him as in error for the teaching. Yet, if Pius XII, as a legitimate Pope, is protected on matters of faith and morals, then him saying NFP is permissible (in certain situations, mind you) couldn't possibly be heretical nor would it contradict Pius XI's condemnation of "frustrating" the marital act, of which, I don't believe NFP can be said to be a "frustration", maybe an abuse of the natural infertile period of a woman's cycle, but not a frustration. But they object to that and say it was fallible because it was a public speech. Even though it, by their estimation, directly contradicts Pius XI's statements on the matter of birth control; therefore, to be consistent, Pius XII should be considered a non-Pope and heretic because of this act of manifest heresy.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/#3
As for the cut in the debate, I don't believe that was malicious, but a technical difficulty, as both admitted it shortly after the fact.
Crossed out what I got wrong above, but, the inconsistency still stands.
-
Interesting video speckzo and pinesap put out in which he gives a hermeneutic for the death penalty and says it may not be admissable but still can be implemented but that heretics should be killed. Interestingly this is yet another ecclesiological issue because of UR.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tXDR4zlUbaM