Bottom line is that John Pontrello is not competent to argue or debate various positions held by CATHOLICS, such as sedeprivationism vs. sedevacantism vs. R&R ... since he's not Catholic, but an Orthodox heretic and schismatic.
Just to take a single example, he keeps conflating the formal / material distinction with something being "partially" one thing and "partially" another. That betrays a gross ignorance of a basic concept in scholastic theology ... and at the same time rooted in Aristotle. I've exposed this nonsense before, but he persists. He could be doing it just as a dishonest strawman argument, but I suspect that he's just ignorant.
In another place, he also misapplies the term "partial" to a different comment I made. I stated that I agree with the principles of sedeprivationism, but don't believe that it actually applies here as an explanation for the Church crisis, since I hold, according to the Siri thesis, that these men are not material popes either. Pontrello attempts to mock this as "partial" sedeprivationism, but ends up only mocking and discrediting himself.
What is so difficult about that, John? I agree in principle with the death penalty, but I don't believe that this individual here should receive it because I don't think he's guilty of the charges made against him. Does this make me a partial supporter of the death penalty or a supporter of a partial death penalty? Come on, John, you can do better than that. Can't you?
He accused me of being "bitter" since I've excoriated his Eastern Orthodoxy. Well, the Church has historically always been "bitter" about heresy and schism, hurling anathemas against heretics, condemning them in no uncertain terms, approving of the death penalty for heretics, since they're destroyers of souls ... and anything I've said pales in comparison to the language that St. Jerome, for one, used against heretics. St. Pius X said that Modernists (heretics) should be beaten with fists. Only those who have weak faith are not "bitter" against heretics.
Of course, it's rather ironic (hypocritical?) for John to call me bitter when he spent 2,864 words dedicated to attacking me (I pasted his text into an online word counter out of curiosity). It would appear that I got under his skin. In the meantime, I've posted a couple sentences here and there mostly just calling him out as an Orthodox heretic and schismatic in an attempt to steer Catholics away from the guy (while LeDeg here seems to be promoting him).
See, Pontrello disguises his heresy with a website referring to the "sedevacantist delusion", making it APPEAR to Traditional Catholics that he might be an R&R type of Catholic, and potentially luring them into to read his garbage. On a side note, Salza & Siscoe should take pause in the fact that Pontrello continues to promote their book (against, out of ignorance of actual Catholicism, since he's approaching the issue from a radically different framework, Eastern Orthodoxy).
Finally, Pontrello wrongly accuses me of going from one position to another for 33 years, while he himself converted to Orthodoxy in a matter of 5 years. That's a gross mischaracterization. I've been supportive of sedeprivationism for the last 25 years, and this is not my "latest love". I was basically R&R (or, rather, didn't think about it too much) for the first 3 years, then became a dogmatic sedevacantist for about 3 years, and then sought a middle position, having landed on sedeprivationist principles in the late 1990s (my guess would be around 1997 or so). So, no, John, I haven't been waffling for 33 years.
On the other hand, it's one thing to change one's opinion about issues that have not been settled by the Church, and another to leave the Catholic religion and to abandon the Catholic faith. There have always been controverted issues, from the "5 Opinions" regarding the status of a heretic pope, to all manner of theological controversies. Never once have I wavered in my faith that the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the rest are minutiae by comparison. Pontrello, on the other hand, changed religions. So he's trying to draw a false equivalency here between changing religions and changing one's mind about various theological controversies (as if the Eastern Orthodox don't have such disagreements among them) and changing religions. There's no comparison, John.
As for the one point that I will concede, my understanding that he started with a misinterpretation of Pius IX came from reading someone else's take on Pontrello. I have not taken the time, nor do I intend to take the time, to read the works of John Pontrello. This came from a supporter of his, so I had assumed it was accurate. I'm not interested in Eastern Orthodoxy, or anything that an Eastern Orthodox heretic and schismatic might have to say. I've gleaned what I know of him from various comments here or there form sources that I had (wrongly?) considered reliable.
So, John, since you appear to be an avid reader of CathInfo, I again call you to convert back to the Catholic faith, since you're on the road to hell, and at the same time you appear intent upon dragging others to hell with you. At least pray to God with an open mind that He lead you to the truth. Pray 15 decades of the Holy Rosary every day for that intention. Of course, I suspect that you've also abandoned praying the Rosary.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time re-explaining and justifying the notion of the formal vs. material distinction, as it's something that applies to all manner of theological subjects, though I could do so, because I don't believe it's worth my time, since most Catholics basically get it. It will suffice to say that John's mischaracterization and ridicule of the distinction as tantamount to "partial" only serves to discredit himself. I will entertain and engage with arguments against sedeprivationism made by actual Catholics, but I rule out debating these controversies with someone who isn't even Catholic, since his opinion means about as much to me as if some Muslim or Jew were attacking or misrepresenting the formal/material distinction.
Topic: John Pontrello responds to Ladislaus (Read 2278 times)