CathInfo.com

I hated Dimond interrogation style though. For the debate itself, it really does not matter what Cassman believes or not. Reasoning itself matters, this is what I learn the most (as opposed to mere knowledge of facts and quotes), and Dimond's reasoning seems to be very primitive.

I had no issues with Brother Peter's cross-exam.  Even the host explained that it's not to be construed as rude but just the ground-rules for how it works.  Cassman, on the other hand, used the cross-exam period just to make more statements, to the point that Brother Peter at one point asked if he was going to actually ask a question.

I thought that Brother Peter was very civil.

I do feel that the emphasis should have been more about the nature of the Church rather than debating the so-called "5 Opinions".  It is true, however, that Salza and Siscoe completely warped Bellarmine's opinion, basically making it the same as Cajetan's, despite the fact that Bellarmine explicitly rejected Cajetan.  They spent hundreds of pages on this nonsense.

On Salza's recent interview with Dr. Sungenis, Salza mentioned in passing that he was recently studying the case of Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius.  Why?  He should have already thoroughly studied it while writing their book.  It's because that case is absolutely fatal to their entire argument regarding Bellarmine.  Bellarmine cited it as proof for his position, and he cited the fact that the Holy Father declared that Nestorius had lost authority from the moment he began preaching heresy and not merely several years later when he was formally "convicted" and deposed.

I formerly had some sympathy for the Cajetan and John of St. Thomas position, but the more one thinks about it, if the Pope isn't deposed or stripped of authority until a declaration, the declaration is a cause of the deposition, and entails a JUDGMENT of a seated Pope, which is condemned.  It's only if the Pope is ALREADY a non-pope that such a judgment can be made.

Because they at least would have a more or less correct understanding of the papacy.

So maybe this is my problem [either my understanding or that I missed some of his arguments], but I don't see how his arguments would be different.  His arguments that related to the papacy seem to have been exactly what I would expect from a NO. I mean he started with Matthew 16:18.

Great to see Bro. Dimond on PwA. Wouldn't have expected that. Also, I'm exceedingly pleased with the debate. Cassman actually came of as more of a meanie than Bro. Dimond. He was the coolest I've ever seen him in a debate, probably because he realized what kind of audience he will get.

All in all, a bit disappointing with regard to substance. Learned only one or two new things from Bro. Dimond. Cassman really came poorly prepared.

I mean, we all know Dimond would destroy almost anybody, but it seems like he didn't even try that hard and even the normies in the comments admit he won.

Overall, I've noticed with the Dimond Brothers that their latest videos have had a much gentler tone to them.  So when they criticized Taylor Marshall (and they were right about their points), they didn't denounce him as a heretic, much less a "bad willed" heretic, but said that he was mistaken.  That was refreshing to see.

Even in this debate with Cassman, he walked back a reference to something as being heretical to call it an "error" ... so perhaps something getting across about the theological notes.

I must say I felt like putting my finger down the back of my throat with Cassman's final statement, which was sanctimonious nonsense, claiming that we must stay in the NO because we must fight the battle and not bail out like cowards, etc.  This has nothing to do with this whatsoever.  We're bailing out because it's NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and not due to fleeing from cowardice and refusing to suffer with the Church.  That was utterly obnoxious.  From Revelation/Apocalypse 18:4 "Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues."