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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19

Author Topic: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?  (Read 17361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #85 on: September 23, 2022, 07:01:19 AM »
Brother Dimond wins a debate in favor of sedevacantism and watch the anti-Dimond posts multiply! 
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #86 on: September 23, 2022, 07:11:38 AM »
Quote from: 2Vermont on September 23, 2022, 07:01:19 AM
Brother Dimond wins a debate in favor of sedevacantism and watch the anti-Dimond posts multiply!
Every time

"Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:"
[Matthew 5:11]
Logged

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #87 on: September 23, 2022, 12:14:21 PM »
Quote from: confederate catholic on September 22, 2022, 11:43:38 PM
He was a postulant and not even a novice. The whole point of the offer was to give them a monastic formation, this offer was made to the entire community by the Benedictine priest who did the funeral. There was no brother anything as none took vows, all were some varied form of postulant/novice.

 So postulants voted another postulant as superior? They did this after being given a chance at formation and then gave themselves vows?
There's more but that should suffice.
They're not benedictines. They may have non Benedictine vows though

Are the men at St. Vincent's Archabbey in Latrobe, Pa true Benedictines?  Are the men at Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery in Silver City, New Mexico true Benedictines?  How do you define true Benedictines?  I ask because I have a friend who was friends with the superior of the monastery in Latrobe.  According to my friend, the superior was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  Rembert Weakland was also a member of the Novus Ordo "OSB".  He was not only a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ but a notorious sɛҳuąƖ predator who paid his victims off with money collected from unsuspecting donors.  Is Rembert Weakland a true Benedictine?  Does it matter to you if they are notorious manifest heretics whose orders are suspect?  As for the Silver City Monastery, they didn't get canonical recognition from the Novus Ordo either.  So are they true Benedictines?  Would you rather get your formation from an effeminate ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who doesn't believe nor practice the Catholic faith or would you rather be formed by someone who actually possesses the Catholic faith and who is serious about following the Rule of St Benedict?

I'm talking about the superior of Latrobe many years ago.  I don't know anything about who is the superior now.  And I don't know anything about previous superiors either.  The point is that it is not safe to be formed by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs nor by anyone who doesn't believe or practice the Catholic faith.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #88 on: September 23, 2022, 12:53:27 PM »
Quote from: confederate catholic on September 22, 2022, 11:43:38 PM
He was a postulant and not even a novice. The whole point of the offer was to give them a monastic formation, this offer was made to the entire community by the Benedictine priest who did the funeral. There was no brother anything as none took vows, all were some varied form of postulant/novice.

 So postulants voted another postulant as superior? They did this after being given a chance at formation and then gave themselves vows?
There's more but that should suffice.
They're not benedictines. They may have non Benedictine vows though

They're more Benedictine than the Novus Ordo clowns who claim to be Benedictines, and as much a religious as any other Traditional religious.  No truly Catholic religious have any formal canonical recognition at this time in the Church.  And I imagine this priest's offer of a "Benedictine formation" was refused due to the priest's orthodoxy being suspect.

And in one hit piece against the Dimond Brothers, this was cited:
Quote
In 2015, Abbot Primate Notker Wolf OSB of the Benedictine Confederation of Congregations, in Rome, stated that the Confederation cannot forbid anyone from calling themselves Benedictine, even if they are not a member of the Confederation of Congregations, just so long as the person claims to be adhering to the Rule of St. Benedict.

And the Dimond Brothers make ample citations along these lines on their website.
Quote
The following information is taken from the articles on “St. Benedict” and “Benedictine” in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia:

A Benedictine community is a community that lives under the Rule of St. Benedict. In the Benedictine order there is no general or common superior over the whole order other than the pope, and the order consists, so to speak, of what are practically a number of orders, called “congregations”, each of which is self-governing; all are united, not under the obedience to one general superior, but only by the spiritual bond of allegiance to the same Rule, which may be modified according to the circuмstances of each particular house or congregation.
Logged

Offline mcollier

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #89 on: September 23, 2022, 04:12:11 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 21, 2022, 08:09:37 PM
You claim that there are "important differeces" between sedeimpoundism/Chazalism and sedeprivationism.  Since it's so obvious to you, please do explain.  I have not yet seen a single convincing distinction between the two that would dissuade me from my contention that the two are identical.  More than anything it's a matter of emphasis.  Some of the leading proponents of sedeprivationism today are also some of the most dogmatic formerly-sedevacantist, and so their emphasis is on the formal vacancy, the lack of authority ... to the point that it may sound like sedevacatism, where with Father Chazal, his emphasis is on the material possession of the office.  So when they speak, they might SOUND like dogmatic SV vs. R&R, but in theory, the positions amount to the same thing:  possession of the office but with lack of any actual authority.
I agree with you 100% but we need to get rid of any confusion that might lead one to think SV vs R&R (at least the type of R&R that states that the Church can lead souls to hell with false teachings and a defective rite of the Mass like I hear on the neoSSPX podcast). If sedeprivationism is NOT sedevacantism then proponents of sedeprivationism should recognize that we do have a pope and stop calling themselves sedevacantists. Likewise, resistance minded Catholics should defend the indefectibility of the Church. The majority view of theologians give faithful Catholics enough ammo to do this without inventing or branding new theories. Yes we still need the Church to come down on precisely which view is the correct one (Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Billuart, etc.), but there is alot more similarities between the views than differences. None of them are sedevacantist though. Sedevacantism is a heresy and will be recognized as a heresy by the Church in due time. All faithful Catholics should reject it. (I am not saying I have the authority to condemn any Catholic that holds the sedevacantist position). There are other important differences between Fr. Chazal's position (which I think is a faithful Catholic position) and the positions taken by sedeprivationsit groups (which can lead to various other errors/danagers) but I will start a new thread to go into what they are. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19
« previous next »