but Trent infallibly defined BoD as explicit

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.

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.

Quote from: EWPJ 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 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 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.