CathInfo.com

He doesn't recover, you can see it on his face that he realized he was in over his head. I don't know why he thought that regurgitating Salza-Siscoe talking points was a good idea when Fr. Cekada refuted them years ago, let alone MHFM themselves. He didn't seem to get that Br. Peter was trying to show him his contradictory position with the questions about particulars regarding his acceptance of V2 doctrines either.

People in the chat, which was chaotic, were saying they should've had Br. Peter debate someone who accepts V2 completely, like Jimmy Akin, rather than an R&R. As the V2-adherents and sedevacantists have more comparable positions on the Crisis than the R&R adherents.

Either way, I hope it provided some appropriate outreach to those already on the fence about these antipopes. I saw Novus Ordo Watch in the chat as well.

Yes, I'm not sure anyone on the R&R side could defend against Br Peter.  Salza was the SSPX's top apologist with regard to the pope question.  He is now firmly back in the Novus Ordo and is a big critic of the R&R position.  I think it is reasonable to suppose that his many debates with sedes helped him realize that R&R is not a tenable position.  I think even the opponents of the SV position were admitting that Br Peter won the debate.  Many were calling for a debate with Jimmy Akin, Patrick Horn or Pinesap.  Someone who would oppose the SV position from the Novus Ordo side.  I agree with that.  Refuting R&R is relatively easy.  Refuting the Novus Ordo will be more difficult because not only do they agree with sedes that the pope is infallible, the highest authority and never to be resisted but they also have put a great deal of thought and effort into making it look like the Novus Ordo is not contradicting any Catholic dogmas.  I'm only talking about conservative Novus Ordos.  The liberal Novus Ordos are a lost cause because they make no pretense about the Catholic Church being a divine institution.  So I hope they will organize another debate with someone taking the Novus Ordo side.

Indeed. Conservative NO's are the closest to the Catholic position in that false church. If sedevacantism were proven undeniably false, I would have no choice but to humble myself and go NO conservative. And even then, if that were the case, according to the NO I can be saved being literally any religion imaginable, so there's no point in even doing that when you can choose an easier religion.

Being a sedevacantist is honestly the most logical position. If I'm wrong, then I lose virtually nothing because I can still be saved according to the NO. But if I'm right, I gain everything because I would be firmly on the right path following the Catholic religion in this apostasy

This really cuts to the crux of the matter.  In the New Order everyone is saved and those who aren’t, well soul annihilated, like you never happened.  I’m comfortable hedging my bets on assuming we had some wonky fake elections over tossing my hat in with the do what thou wilt crowd.

This is a massacre. Cassman is trotting out arguments that were refuted years ago. The Canon law vs Divine law fallacy. Which is pure Salzaism

This drove me crazy and, unless I missed it, I don't think Peter D ever makes the heresy by divine law point.