Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?  (Read 17411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

It was good to see Brother Peter behind a webcam, he should start some kind of podcast.  

I enjoyed the debate, but I don't necessarily believe it was very good.  Of course, Brother Peter came prepared, but Mr. Cassman was out of his league on this one.  The Pints with Aquinas guy should have done more due diligence and brought a better prepared individual to argue against the Sede Vacante position.  

Regardless, I'm glad Brother Peter agreed to the debate.  I hope he gave some folks something to think about.  

Offline St Giles

  • Supporter
They did for a while, but I think they may have stopped.
If so, I wonder if they think the true Mass has stopped.




Regardless, I'm glad Brother Peter agreed to the debate.  I hope he gave some folks something to think about. 
He certainly has me thinking of talking with a priest of a local independent chapel. 

I do wish the debates would focus less on the "heretic pope" question and more on the broader questions of ...

Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?

and

Is it possilble for a legitimate Pope to destroy the Church, pervert the Magisterium, institute a (bad imitation of a) Prot liturgy as the Church's public worship, canonize bogus saints, etc.?

Cassman actually set that up as a softball in his earlier remarks, where he claimed that the Papacy is there precisely to be the rock on which the Chuch is founded and to prevent all these evils to befall the Church.  Yes, indeed, and that's why we say these men can't be popes.

You can argue until the cows come home about Bellarmine vs. Cajetan / John of St. Thomas (Bellarmine's opinion is much stronger in that any alternative entails judging a pope and having the declaration serve as a cause of the deposition, and those views are both heretical).
The schismatic Conciliar sect is NOT the Catholic Church. The errors/heresies promoted come from this schismatic sect NOT the Catholic Church. The NO Mass is a schismatic rite for instance. The conciliar/modernist heretics are NOT members of the Catholic Church by their sin of breaking with the Faith. They do not profess the True Catholic Faith. However, they can possess their office until they are deposed by a general council or future pope, because their holding of an office is a separate matter separate and apart from their membership with the Church. Catholics are duty bound to avoid these heretics and their errors. Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam addresses many of these questions. One can say there are similarities to sedeprivationism, but there are important differences. Ultimate there is more agreement among Cajetan, Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, Billuart, etc (though not unanimous/perfect agreement) about how this crisis is handled. But it is definitely NOT sedevacantism or conservative Novus Ordo’ism (which is what the neoSSPX is becoming except worse because they claim the Catholic Church can promulgate poisonous rites/teachings).

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
If so, I wonder if they think the true Mass has stopped.

Well, of course they would hold that there are valid Masses still going on, but I doubt they believe that any existinng priests or bishops still hold the full Catholic faith.