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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 19

Author Topic: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?  (Read 17496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #60 on: September 21, 2022, 08:09:37 PM »
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
Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #61 on: September 21, 2022, 08:20:36 PM »
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, 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.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2022, 08:23:27 PM »
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

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2022, 08:27:49 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.
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

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Debate: Jeff Cassman vs. Br. Peter Dimond - Are JXXIII thru Francis true Popes?
« Reply #64 on: September 21, 2022, 10:36:09 PM »
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
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 19
« previous next »