Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: DigitalLogos on September 20, 2022, 11:09:02 AM
-
Live this afternoon. Should be interesting
https://youtu.be/tIauJB2_y1c
-
Who is Jeff Cassman?
-
Who is Jeff Cassman?
Some sort of NO conservative apologist. His bio from the video doesn't tell much, honestly.
I think he's going to be eviscerated.
Jeff Cassman is a former Air Force Intelligence Analyst and a predictive behavioral modeling expert for an ad agency in Nashville, TN. He’s a cradle Catholic and first attended a traditionalLatin Mass in 2000. He later studied theology at Holy Apostles College in Connecticut.
Jeff is a co-founder of Catholic Men of America, our country’s only national professional business fraternity for Catholic men. He is a gentleman farmer, raising pigs, rabbits, chicken and quail and has designed and built aquaponic greenhouse growing environments for tilapia and organic produce. Jeff has been married to his high school sweetheart, Sarah for 28 years and they have homeschooled their 14 children (11 boys and three girls), now ages 3 to 26. In his spare time,Jeff enjoys eating and sleeping.
-
Some sort of NO conservative apologist. His bio from the video doesn't tell much, honestly.
I think he's going to be eviscerated.
I just hope Peter Dimond remains respectful.
-
I just hope Peter Dimond remains respectful.
Yes, me too. PintsWithAquinas has a big reach.
-
It's surprising how civil most debates with Br Peter Dimond are. Not like the debates we have on Cathinfo where the discussion almost inevitably devolves into insults. And I don't blame people on Cathinfo for the insults either because these debates touch on the core of our faith. Maybe in-person debates are more likely to end cordially than text-based debates? One thing is for certain, debates almost never end up with one side admitting total defeat. But there definitely is the potential to sway onlookers one way or the other. I hope it goes well for Br Peter.
-
Cassman is likely to win. The Dimonds sede material is quite awful. Unless they've changed, when I was reviewing their sede material about five years ago, their central sedevacantist argument is that the conciliar popes lack the supernatural virtue of faith, and therefore are not members of the Church.
Pathetic error that could easily be avoided by reading just about any ecclesiology of the last 500 years.
-
Cassman is likely to win. The Dimonds sede material is quite awful. Unless they've changed, when I was reviewing their sede material about five years ago, their central sedevacantist argument is that the conciliar popes lack the supernatural virtue of faith, and therefore are not members of the Church.
Pathetic error that could easily be avoided by reading just about any ecclesiology of the last 500 years.
Really? I thought their focus was the promulgation and teaching of Vatican II as it is with most sedes.
-
Really? I thought their focus was the promulgation and teaching of Vatican II as it is with most sedes.
It is. I don't know where he's getting that from.
-
Wow, the elusive Br. Peter has a webcam set up.
-
I think that chat is making me dizzy. Way too fast.
-
I think that chat is making me dizzy. Way too fast.
It's a total mess lol
-
Does Francis profess the true faith?
Cassman is a disaster.
-
Is Joe Biden a member of the Catholic Church?
Cassman is looking distressed.
-
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
-
I had to come back online for a bit and checked in.
This is interesting:
https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/finance/cassman-tells-judge-he-is-guilty/article_0cbd6ddc-393c-5494-be99-1a3826484cb6.html
Cassman tells judge he is guilty
- KEN WHITEHOUSE
- [color=rgba(40, 40, 41, 0.5)]DEC 21, 2010[/font][/size][/font][/size][/color]
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/nashvillepost.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/78/078ed3cd-262c-5195-aecd-94695581060b/5f7f5e8cb51f3.image.png?resize=469%2C500)
- Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nashvillepost.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinance%2Fcassman-tells-judge-he-is-guilty%2Farticle_0cbd6ddc-393c-5494-be99-1a3826484cb6.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share)
- Twitter (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?&text=Cassman tells judge he is)
- Email (?subject=%5BNashville%20Post%5D%20Cassman%20tells%20judge%20he%20is%20guilty&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nashvillepost.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinance%2Fcassman-tells-judge-he-is-guilty%2Farticle_0cbd6ddc-393c-5494-be99-1a3826484cb6.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share)
- Print (http://javascript:window.print())
Copy article link
- Save (https://www.nashvillepost.com/content/tncms/live/#)
Clean cut, wearing a green prison-issued jumpsuit and shackled at the ankles, the former Franklin-based fraudster/politician Jeff Cassman admitted his guilt today in running a Ponzi scheme.
The plea entered before U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger, which had no conditions meaning there is no plea bargain, came on the day when his trial was supposed to begin. Cassman had originally pled not guilty before a U.S. Magistrate in October.
Cassman fled Tennessee in late 2008 – taking his wife and nine children with him – to avoid prosecution on mail and securities fraud charges related to a Ponzi scheme. He was indicted early this year and apprehended in Guatemala. While he was in that country, a 10th child was born to him and his wife.
Sentencing has been set for Monday, March 28. until then, federal probation officers will develop a pre-sentencing report to present to Trauger to help her determine the length of the prison sentence and other penalties.
The maximum penalties for mail fraud are 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. For securities fraud, they're 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine.
In addition to admitting his guilt today, Cassman also admitted to another lie – one he won't be charged for. In the past, he has represented himself to victims as having a theological degree, even claiming as much on social websites such as LinkedIn.
Asked today by Trauger what his highest level of education was, a question designed to make sure that he could not make claims of ignorance or misunderstanding later should he try to go back on his guilty plea, Cassman replied "College...and some graduate courses."
Cassman has a college degree he obtained online through Missouri-based Park University, but claimed he had a master's in theology from Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Connecticut.
Trauger has been busy recently with other Ponzi schemers, having overseen the trials of fraudsters like Michael Park and Aaron Vallett.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ty Howard, who prosecuted the late Barry Stokes for his 1Point fraud, is the prosecuting attorney. Nashville attorney Nathan Moore is representing Cassman.
-
That's interesting. But I don't see how it has anything to do with his arguments against sedevacantism.
-
That's interesting. But I don't see how it has anything to do with his arguments against sedevacantism.
You're right. Arguments stand on their own merits of course.
-
The guy got utterly decimated. It's actually interesting he was part of a Ponzi scheme as well. I find his fallacious copes and lack of admittance of simple facts just such a display of ones character, especially considering the subject matter...
-
The guy got utterly decimated. It's actually interesting he was part of a Ponzi scheme as well. I find his fallacious copes and lack of admittance of simple facts just such a display of ones character, especially considering the subject matter...
He was decimated. Are we certain that’s the same Jeff Cassman arrested for the Ponzi scheme? I wonder if SSPX approved his representing their position in this debate. I don’t see how anyone else could have done any better though.
-
He was decimated. Are we certain that’s the same Jeff Cassman arrested for the Ponzi scheme? I wonder if SSPX approved his representing their position in this debate. I don’t see how anyone else could have done any better though.
Yes, that's important and I checked into that before posting it.
(https://i.imgur.com/K8bYknE.png)
Here is another article with a different photo:
https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2010/12/22/former-financial-fugitive-pleads-guilty.html
And more info from Church Militant:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/the-truth-about-jeff-cassman
-
Really? I thought their focus was the promulgation and teaching of Vatican II as it is with most sedes.
.
About five years ago a friend and I were discussing the brothers, and she mentioned them having some 'good material' and sent a video along for me to review. It was a case for sedevacantism, and their ultimate conclusion was that the conciliar pontiffs do not have the virtue of faith and therefore are not members of the Church (and therefore not popes). They of course discussed the errors of Vatican 2, but only as evidence that those men lack the virtue of faith.
.
If I can find the video, I will post it.
.
That said, I clearly spoke prematurely. Turns out Cassman is a con-man, too. Matt Fradd has always rubbed me the wrong way and I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he pulled out someone who has literally faked theological credentials to debate someone who literally fakes religious credentials. These people deserve each other.
-
.
About five years ago a friend and I were discussing the brothers, and she mentioned them having some 'good material' and sent a video along for me to review. It was a case for sedevacantism, and their ultimate conclusion was that the conciliar pontiffs do not have the virtue of faith and therefore are not members of the Church (and therefore not popes). They of course discussed the errors of Vatican 2, but only as evidence that those men lack the virtue of faith.
.
If I can find the video, I will post it.
.
That said, I clearly spoke prematurely. Turns out Cassman is a con-man, too. Matt Fradd has always rubbed me the wrong way and I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he pulled out someone who has literally faked theological credentials to debate someone who literally fakes religious credentials. These people deserve each other.
Okay, well, if you wanted to be objective you would actually seek out what their true position is on the Pope, not paraphrase some hearsay about what your friend sent you years ago. https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/)
Second, prove that the Dimonds are "con-men" (and no, don't point to the Eric Hoyle case). I don't necessarily agree with all their positions, but I would argue that they are genuine in their zeal, if not mistaken on some things and their approach on evangelization; albeit, this debate was a proof that Br. Peter isn't necessarily the "uncharitable" "bitter" person he's made out to be.
-
This debate was a proof that Br. Peter isn't necessarily the "uncharitable" "bitter" person he's made out to be.
I was very pleased with his performance. I have more respect for him now given his ability to remain calm and charitable. Not to mention his ability to throw out support for the sedevacantist position on a dime.
-
Okay, well, if you wanted to be objective you would actually seek out what their true position is on the Pope, not paraphrase some hearsay about what your friend sent you years ago. https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/)
Second, prove that the Dimonds are "con-men" (and no, don't point to the Eric Hoyle case). I don't necessarily agree with all their positions, but I would argue that they are genuine in their zeal, if not mistaken on some things and their approach on evangelization; albeit, this debate was a proof that Br. Peter isn't necessarily the "uncharitable" "bitter" person he's made out to be.
.
To be clear, I watched the video and actually rewinded it several times to make sure I was understanding their case. My friend did not tell me anything about it, except that she found it a compelling case for SVism.
.
Why is the Eric Hoyle case not sufficient evidence?
-
.
To be clear, I watched the video and actually rewinded it several times to make sure I was understanding their case. My friend did not tell me anything about it, except that she found it a compelling case for SVism.
.
Why is the Eric Hoyle case not sufficient evidence?
Because it was objectively decided by the courts in favor of MHFM. Hoyle donated the money and then later decided he didn't like their monastery and tried to get the donation back. There's no evidence they coerced him into making such a donation.
-
Crisis or not, it seems a bit of a stretch that the Dimonds can't or won't find a valid enough bishop to be their authority.
-
Crisis or not, it seems a bit of a stretch that the Dimonds can't or won't find a valid enough bishop to be their authority.
So now there's degrees to validity? Also, it's not a matter of valid holy orders, for them, but jurisdiction. They do not believe there are any bishops with jurisdiction remaining, that they know of.
-
So now there's degrees to validity? Also, it's not a matter of valid holy orders, for them, but jurisdiction. They do not believe there are any bishops with jurisdiction remaining, that they know of.
I meant valid enough for their own liking, or sufficiently fitting their criteria given no other options.
-
Okay, well, if you wanted to be objective you would actually seek out what their true position is on the Pope, not paraphrase some hearsay about what your friend sent you years ago. https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/)
Second, prove that the Dimonds are "con-men" (and no, don't point to the Eric Hoyle case). I don't necessarily agree with all their positions, but I would argue that they are genuine in their zeal, if not mistaken on some things and their approach on evangelization; albeit, this debate was a proof that Br. Peter isn't necessarily the "uncharitable" "bitter" person he's made out to be.
Exactly right. The Eric Hoyle case hinged on Hoyle proving that MHFM was a fraud. He failed to do that. As far as the accuracy of MHFM's claim that they are Benedictines, the court isn't really the last word on that. But who is going decide that issue? The Novus Ordo sect? No. If MHFM isn't Benedictine, then what about the SSPX Benedictines? They don't have canonical recognition from the Novus Ordo either. And why would traditionalists care about what the Novus Ordo thinks? So no, MHFM is not a fraud and the brothers are not con-men.
-
I meant valid enough for their own liking, or sufficiently fitting their criteria given no other options.
Well, clearly, there isn't. Otherwise they would most certainly seek to place themselves under them. This is the grave nature of the invincible ignorance error, virtually all known traditionalist clerics adhere to it and are therefore undeclared heretics.
-
No. If MHFM isn't Benedictine, then what about the SSPX Benedictines? They don't have canonical recognition from the Novus Ordo either. And why would traditionalists care about what the Novus Ordo thinks? So no, MHFM is not a fraud and the brothers are not con-men.
All non-canonical religious orders amount to personal vows anyway. So singling out the Dimonds just because they're zealous and blunt, while giving SSPX or Resistance or other sede religious a "pass" is absurd.
-
Around 1:48:00, Br Peter makes a devastating point about the R&R position needing to pick and choose from the doctrines of V2 after he had just established the Novus Ordo "popes" claims to the highest magisterial authority. And this was after Jeff Cassman repeatedly demanded to know what authority MHFM submits to. Cassman seems out of his league to me. They should get Pinesap to argue for their side. Pinesap at least was a talented opponent even if he didn't have a great command of all the issues. I'm still watching the last 30 minutes of this debate but I don't see how Cassman can recover at this point. Pinesap lasted 2 hours before getting blown up in the last 10 minutes of his debate. Cassman was on the ropes within 20 minutes (10 if you don't count his 10 minute intro).
-
Around 1:48:00, Br Peter makes a devastating point about the R&R position needing to pick and choose from the doctrines of V2 after he had just established the Novus Ordo "popes" claims to the highest magisterial authority. And this was after Jeff Cassman repeatedly demanded to know what authority MHFM submits to. Cassman seems out of his league to me. They should get Pinesap to argue for their side. Pinesap at least was a talented opponent even if he didn't have a great command of all the issues. I'm still watching the last 30 minutes of this debate but I don't see how Cassman can recover at this point. Pinesap lasted 2 hours before getting blown up in the last 10 minutes of his debate. Cassman was on the ropes within 20 minutes (10 if you don't count his 10 minute intro).
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.
-
At about 1:30 this afternoon, I received this e-mail from him on some distribution list I must be on --
Hi Laszlo,
I will be debating Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery at 5pm ET today on Matt Fradd's Pints With Aquinas. I'm defending the Church and the Papacy, and Peter is asserting that Francis is not a true Pope.
If you've ever wondered whether a Pope could be a heretic, or what 'sedevacantism' is all about, please tune in today.
Please pray for us to persevere in charity and truth, and if you can join us for what I believe is an important discussion.
Here's the link:
....
Thank you in advance for your prayers.
--
____________________________
Jeff Cassman
Co-Founder
CatholicMenOfAmerica.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. :facepalm:
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
-
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. :facepalm:
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.
-
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.
I didn't stay with the debate after an hour because I needed to make dinner. However, I did go back to read comments later, and many people who once thought sedevacantism was some crackpot theory are now considering it. I really think that most people who are anti-sedevacantism just don't know what it is. Good job Peter.
-
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.
-
This drove me crazy and, unless I missed it, I don't think Peter D ever makes the heresy by divine law point.
He did, he laid out the distinction between the two because Cassman went full Salza on him about needing a canonical trial etc.
-
He did, he laid out the distinction between the two because Cassman went full Salza on him about needing a canonical trial etc.
Did I miss that!? [if so, I'm probably guilty of reading the comments!] Or was that after the first hour?
-
Wow, the elusive Br. Peter has a webcam set up.
On a serious note, he seems awfully thin. Is this normal for him? Is he okay?
-
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.
This guy was not R&R. When he responded to the question about errors in Vatican II, he said there were "ambiguities".
-
He did, he laid out the distinction between the two because Cassman went full Salza on him about needing a canonical trial etc.
He also stated in his opening about Paul IV's cuм Ex embodying divine law in that a heretic cannot become pope.
-
This guy was not R&R. When he responded to the question about errors in Vatican II, he said there were "ambiguities".
I say that because he's apparently some huge apologist for the Neo-SSPX
On a serious note, he seems awfully thin. Is this normal for him? Is he okay?
I don’t know. This is the first time I've ever seen him outside of a single photo. Maybe he does extreme penances? He looked thin, but not ill to me.
-
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. :facepalm:
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
Right. If I became convinced that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, I would make haste to rejoin it somehow. I might even appear on Marcus Grodi's "The Journey Home" program :laugh1:
-
Right. If I became convinced that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, I would make haste to rejoin it somehow. I might even appear on Marcus Grodi's "The Journey Home" program :laugh1:
:laugh1:
-
I say that because he's apparently some huge apologist for the Neo-SSPX
I don’t know. This is the first time I've ever seen him outside of a single photo. Maybe he does extreme penances? He looked thin, but not ill to me.
He didn't look well to me at first.
Do the Dimonds receive the sacraments from anyone? Do they have a priest there?
-
He didn't look well to me at first.
Do the Dimonds receive the sacraments from anyone? Do they have a priest there?
It was my understanding that they received the sacraments from an eastern rite Catholic priest since they knew he was validly ordained.
-
It was my understanding that they received the sacraments from an eastern rite Catholic priest since they knew he was validly ordained.
They did for a while, but I think they may have stopped.
-
On a serious note, he seems awfully thin. Is this normal for him? Is he okay?
That struck me as well. If you look at the still shot that shows an older picture, he does currently seem to be extremely thin. So either he's been fasting or else he may have a health issue (such as cancer) ... as he almost has that "emaciated" look to him (like my brother did before he died of cancer).
-
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).
-
Just listen to Cassman from about 23:58 - 24:58. This is PRECISELY the reason for SVism. He was handing Brother Peter, on a silver platter, the rope with which to hang him during this debate.
-
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. :facepalm:
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
I don’t find this argument convincing because BOTH sides believe people who pick the wrong position CAN be saved but nevertheless believe that it makes it more difficult for them. Most sede clerics believe there are some true Catholic laypeople in the NO churches, while I believe 83 canon law leaves it ambiguous whether sspv, CMRI, etc can have valid confessions. I feel like either way you’re making the best decision you can and trusting God if you’re wrong. The mere fact that you CAN be saved if you’re wrong doesn’t mean it’s just completely irrelevant or has zero spiritual consequences.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam addresses many of these questions. One can say there are similarities to sedeprivationism, but there are important differences. ... 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).
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 don’t find this argument convincing because BOTH sides believe people who pick the wrong position CAN be saved but nevertheless believe that it makes it more difficult for them. Most sede clerics believe there are some true Catholic laypeople in the NO churches, while I believe 83 canon law leaves it ambiguous whether sspv, CMRI, etc can have valid confessions. I feel like either way you’re making the best decision you can and trusting God if you’re wrong. The mere fact that you CAN be saved if you’re wrong doesn’t mean it’s just completely irrelevant or has zero spiritual consequences.
That's not etirely true. There's a wrong position and then there's a WRONG position. If one is so wrong that the fundamental formal motive of true supernatural faith is eroded, then they cannot have the Catholic faith and therefore cannot be saved. St. Pius X discussed the distinction between these two degrees of error. There's some error that is so FUNDAMENTAL to being able to have the proper formal motive of faith that it's incompatible with having supernatural faith. There are indeed some in all these groups who still have the faith, but many do not. Alas, many of the SVs do hold that infidels, Jews, and all manner of heretics and schismatics can be saved, so there's that problem too ... as it leads to an ecclesiology that's nearly identical to that of the Conciliar Church, which they then hold to be heretical.
-
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.
The only one I know of that wouldn't be a heretic by their estimation, is Fr. Dominic Crawford in Minnesota who holds the same positions on EENS and NFP. Otherwise, I am unaware of any that fit their definitions.
Regardless, in their view, since "undeclared heretics" offer valid Masses (such as SSPX, Resistance, and sedevacantist groups) would mean that they do not hold the position that the Mass has ceased to exist. Given Br. Peter's love of Padre Pio, I'm sure he gives consideration to the quote attributed to the holy stigmatist that the world would sooner exist without the sun than the Mass (paraphrasing).
-
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.
Not to lead this thread into a tangent. But I have come to think that both theories are similar insofar as sedeprivationism presupposes a sedevacante and sedeimpoundism presupposes sedeplenism. From there, they seem to converge and become virtually identical.
I don't really see either as a position in itself, rather than a possible answer to how this Crisis ends. So one could be a sedevacantist and then hold that sedeprivationism is the means by which we may see another true Pope. Whereas sedeplenists could hold to sedeimpoundism as the means to explain a "heretical Pope" and reconcile their recognize/resisting his Magisterial teachings.
-
That's not etirely true. There's a wrong position and then there's a WRONG position. If one is so wrong that the fundamental formal motive of true supernatural faith is eroded, then they cannot have the Catholic faith and therefore cannot be saved. St. Pius X discussed the distinction between these two degrees of error. There's some error that is so FUNDAMENTAL to being able to have the proper formal motive of faith that it's incompatible with having supernatural faith. There are indeed some in all these groups who still have the faith, but many do not. Alas, many of the SVs do hold that infidels, Jєωs, and all manner of heretics and schismatics can be saved, so there's that problem too ... as it leads to an ecclesiology that's nearly identical to that of the Conciliar Church, which they then hold to be heretical.
Well forget the idea that schismatics and Hindus could or couldn’t ne saved for a second, and just think about sedevacantism vs “conservative conciliarism”. Neither view categorically says that someone holding the other view is damned, and both would say that there are real spiritual consequences that come from making a mistake. I don’t see how “well I’m just gonna be a sede because the novus ordo just says everyone can be saved anyway so if I’m wrong I’ll just be saved anyway” is a good argument. I’m critiquing rhe ARGUMENT not the position.
-
I have to admit, I have no response to Dimond's quotes of St. Bellarmine regarding heretics loosing their offices prior the formal process. The biggest homework and value in that 2h discussion for me personally.
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.
Again, it is quite obvious that Cassman totally accepts the hermeneutic of continuity. In fact, he said it expressis verbis several times during the show. This is not even FSSPX position. Once you are there, it is an end of any meaningful discussion about the Tradition. I cannot resist an impression that that was his job - in a way - to discredit the Society. A little conspiracy here. Or he is just not very smart men.
The most amusing figure was the host of this discussion. I do not know his guy, perhaps some kind of NO conservative, but his facial "I am not happy" expressions during the show and resorting to a cigar or whatever he smoked to lower stress levels were priceless.
-
Did anyone bother to throw a CathInfo link on the chat?
Lost opportunity.
-
I have to admit, I have no response to Dimond's quotes of St. Bellarmine regarding heretics loosing their offices prior the formal process. The biggest homework and value in that 2h discussion for me personally.
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.
Again, it is quite obvious that Cassman totally accepts the hermeneutic of continuity. In fact, he said it expressis verbis several times during the show. This is not even FSSPX position. Once you are there, it is an end of any meaningful discussion about the Tradition. I cannot resist an impression that that was his job - in a way - to discredit the Society. A little conspiracy here. Or he is just not very smart men.
The most amusing figure was the host of this discussion. I do not know his guy, perhaps some kind of NO conservative, but his facial "I am not happy" expressions during the show and resorting to a cigar or whatever he smoked to lower stress levels were priceless.
Cassman focused on what Peter Dimond believed as well. They are debating what they believe... according to Catholic principles/teaching [which Peter Dimond referenced over and over again]. Cassman seemed to focus only on Canon Law [at least for the first hour].
Brother Peter asked Cassman what he believed to show his contradictions [for example, his questioning about whether he believes Joe Biden to be Catholic].
I do agree with you regarding Cassman's position. He has no issues with Vatican II other than there are "ambiguities". Pathetic.
-
Brother Peter asked Cassman what he believed to show his contradictions [for example, his questioning about whether he believes Joe Biden to be Catholic].
Exactly. He showed how Cassman was yet another Pope-checker and hypocrite. The biggest point in Cassman's favor was that Bro. Peter recognizes virtually no living authority, given he rejects all trad clerics as heretics.
People in the chat kept saying Bro. Peter won, "but that doesn't mean he's right" as a cope for the fact that his position is actually consistent with Catholic teaching, unlike Cassman. A debate against a NO would be far more interesting.
-
Exactly. He showed how Cassman was yet another Pope-checker and hypocrite. The biggest point in Cassman's favor was that Bro. Peter recognizes virtually no living authority, given he rejects all trad clerics as heretics.
People in the chat kept saying Bro. Peter won, "but that doesn't mean he's right" as a cope for the fact that his position is actually consistent with Catholic teaching, unlike Cassman. A debate against a NO would be far more interesting.
Given Cassman only believes Vatican II has ambiguities, how would the debate be any different with a NO?
-
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.
-
Given Cassman only believes Vatican II has ambiguities, how would the debate be any different with a NO?
Because they at least would have a more or less correct understanding of the papacy.
The R&R types have so misconstrued the nature of the papacy that now we have things like anti-ultramontanism of Dr. Kwack or the cafeteria traditionalism of the Cassmans of the world.
-
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.
-
Live this afternoon. Should be interesting
https://youtu.be/tIauJB2_y1c
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.
-
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."
-
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."
I remember vocalizing my discontent with that trash when I was watching it. How is it that any of us are running from the fight? For example, Bro. Peter most certainly doesn't run from the fight given that he constantly debates people online or responds to them.
-
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 mean, how are they going to bring people to the Faith by doing that? Yes, they have those they've successfully converted, but those of us who are already practicing Catholicism hesitate given their denunciation of everyone as a heretic (no matter how true). While I agree with their points on the EENS dogma and the Pope, I've certainly voiced my issues with their "tone" and lack of distinctions.
-
Cassman actually came of as more of a meanie than Bro. Dimond.
:laugh1: Crazy, right?
-
A reply to an earlier comment about being Benedictine.
There's a vast difference between being a member of a community with an actual professed monk from an actual canonical monastery where he was formed who left because of the changes and he guides you through the way of life, having a bishop take your vows publicly.
And having a postulant without vows and no formation trying to form you.
Big difference between all traditional religious orders ( the former ) and the latter ( Diamonds). They were even offered to be formed by benedictines and sent back to their monastery after vows. They refused.
-
A reply to an earlier comment about being Benedictine.
There's a vast difference between being a member of a community with an actual professed monk from an actual canonical monastery where he was formed who left because of the changes and he guides you through the way of life, having a bishop take your vows publicly.
And having a postulant without vows and no formation trying to form you.
Big difference between all traditional religious orders ( the former ) and the latter ( Diamonds). They were even offered to be formed by benedictines and sent back to their monastery after vows. They refused.
Good point. I heard from a talk by Richard Ibranyi (kind of a crazy guy) where he claimed that Bro. Peter didn't meet the proper requirements to become a Superior. But he also made a bunch of other unsubstantiated, subjective claims about Bros. Peter and Michael as well.
That's interesting to know though, do you have a source for the last point? It still doesn't change the fact that he and his apostolate does great work to defend Catholic doctrine.
-
Yes my monastic superior was the one who buried their superior and made the offer
-
That's interesting to know though, do you have a source for the last point? It still doesn't change the fact that he and his apostolate does great work to defend Catholic doctrine.
It's garbage ... one of many slanders out there about the Brothers. They're as legit as any Trad religious.
MHFM was founded byBrother Joseph Natale, a legitimate Benedictine who actually left the largest Benedictine monastery in the US with the permission of his Archabbot to start his own Benedictine community. He did so, founding a Traditional Benedictine monastery. Brother Michael joined MHFM in 1992, and then Brother Natale died in 1995, at which time Brother Michael became the superior. So he was there for three years being formed by Brother Joseph before the latter died.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/benedictine-community/
The Founder of our Benedictine community:
Brother Joseph Natale O.S.B.
Brother Joseph Natale was trained at St. Vincent’s benedictine Arch-abbey in Latrobe, PA. St. Vincent’s Arch-abbey was the largest Benedictine monastery in the United States. In the 1960’s, Bro. Joseph left with the permission of the then Archabbot Dennis Strittmatter to start his own Benedictine community. Shortly after leaving St. Vincent’s, Bro. Joseph started his Benedictine community in southern New Jersey. Bro. Joseph never allowed the New Mass to be celebrated at his monastery, only allowing the traditional Roman Rite Mass. Bro. Joseph printed, distributed and sold numerous books, pamphlets and audio tapes defending the Catholic faith and educating Catholics about the true teachings of Catholicism. In 1994, the community was given a piece of land in rural New York. Bro. Joseph wrote and stated on many occasions that he would be moving the community to New York. But Bro. Joseph was not able to complete this desire, due to the fact that he died on November 11, 1995. After Bro. Joseph died, Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B. was elected superior of the community. Bro. Michael immediately went to work to fulfill Bro. Joseph’s wish to move the community to New York. In late 1997, Most Holy Family Monastery finally finished moving the community and its belongings to New York.
Bro. Michael Dimond O.S.B.
Raised in a family with no religion, Bro. Michael Dimond converted to Catholicism at the age of 15. Brother Michael Dimond entered Most Holy Family Monastery in 1992 at the age of 19, a short time after graduating from high school. Brother Michael Dimond’s father graduated from Princeton University in New Jersey and his mother graduated from Stanford University in California. Brother Michael Dimond was elected superior of Most Holy Family Monastery in late 1995. Bro. Dimond took his final vows before a validly ordained priest.
John Vennari was also at MHFM until 1994.
-
According to Michael Cuneo (https://books.google.com/books?id=8OL9tyvN5YcC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=joseph+natale+berlin+new+jersey&source=bl&ots=TUx3vOOWj-&sig=ACfU3U3wt4sw8KSmavVmz_hZmHvak4B_4g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihqqPc6Kn6AhWnq4kEHZDkDQEQ6AF6BAgQEAM#v=onepage&q=joseph natale berlin new jersey&f=false) (p. 88), who cites the archivist at St Vincent's, Br Joseph Natale was only a postulant (briefly) and never took final vows. You can watch an interview of Br Joseph here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc8limgHXTU). Please note that they sing Roman Compline (as opposed to the monastic form) in English.
-
According to Michael Cuneo (https://books.google.com/books?id=8OL9tyvN5YcC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=joseph+natale+berlin+new+jersey&source=bl&ots=TUx3vOOWj-&sig=ACfU3U3wt4sw8KSmavVmz_hZmHvak4B_4g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihqqPc6Kn6AhWnq4kEHZDkDQEQ6AF6BAgQEAM#v=onepage&q=joseph natale berlin new) (p. 88), who cites the archivist at St Vincent's, Br Joseph Natale was only a postulant (briefly) and never took final vows. You can watch an interview of Br Joseph here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc8limgHXTU). Please note that they sing Roman Compline (as opposed to the monastic form) in English.
Welcome new member, how about you introduce yourself in the Introductions thread?
-
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
-
Brother Dimond wins a debate in favor of sedevacantism and watch the anti-Dimond posts multiply!
-
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]
-
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.
-
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:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I predict you will be back in the Novus Ordo before too long. Salza said the SV position was schism or some times apostasy. But I don't think he was foolish enough to claim it was heresy given that it is entirely based on pre V2 theology from St Robert Bellarmine and many other lesser Catholic theologians.
-
Yes, this traditional Benedictines offer was rejected because he was suspect, amazingly the Archbishop found him to be sound.
A Benedictine community is a community that lives under the Rule of St. Benedict
Yes. Vennari left before Natalie died because there was no formation and the rule was ignored, it was chaos. But hey I guess any lay person can just call themselves a Benedictine if they want to.
-
Yes, this traditional Benedictines offer was rejected because he was suspect, amazingly the Archbishop found him to be sound.
A Benedictine community is a community that lives under the Rule of St. Benedict
Yes. Vennari left before Natalie died because there was no formation and the rule was ignored, it was chaos. But hey I guess any lay person can just call themselves a Benedictine if they want to.
So by your definition MHFM is a Benedictine community. Got it.