CathInfo.com

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.

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.

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?