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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?  (Read 7861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 41868
  • Reputation: +23920/-4344
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #60 on: September 21, 2022, 08:09:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: mcollier on September 21, 2022, 05:00:42 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #61 on: September 21, 2022, 08:20:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 21, 2022, 01:58:02 PM
    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, 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.
    Logged

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8316
    • Reputation: +4706/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #62 on: September 21, 2022, 08:23:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 21, 2022, 07:54:10 PM
    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).
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8316
    • Reputation: +4706/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #63 on: September 21, 2022, 08:27:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    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.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1889
    • Reputation: +500/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #64 on: September 21, 2022, 10:36:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 21, 2022, 08:20:36 PM
    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.  
    Logged

    Offline andy

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 296
    • Reputation: +73/-44
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #65 on: September 21, 2022, 11:08:37 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

    • 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.


    Logged

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2042
    • Reputation: +448/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #66 on: September 21, 2022, 11:57:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Did anyone bother to throw a CathInfo link on the chat?

    Lost opportunity.
    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #67 on: September 22, 2022, 06:55:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: andy on September 21, 2022, 11:08:37 PM
    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.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8316
    • Reputation: +4706/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #68 on: September 22, 2022, 07:08:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on September 22, 2022, 06:55:50 AM
    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.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #69 on: September 22, 2022, 07:37:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on September 22, 2022, 07:08:26 AM
    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? 
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #70 on: September 22, 2022, 07:51:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: andy on September 21, 2022, 11:08:37 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8316
    • Reputation: +4706/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #71 on: September 22, 2022, 09:18:53 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on September 22, 2022, 07:37:01 AM
    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.
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10057
    • Reputation: +5252/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #72 on: September 22, 2022, 09:22:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on September 22, 2022, 09:18:53 AM
    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.
    Logged
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    • O sacrum convivum... https://youtu.be/-WCicnX6pN8
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #73 on: September 22, 2022, 12:34:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on September 20, 2022, 11:09:02 AM
    Live this afternoon. Should be interesting


    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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
    « Reply #74 on: September 22, 2022, 02:12:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on September 22, 2022, 12:34:42 PM
    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."
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7
    « previous next »