Author Topic: SISCOES FOLLY? (Read 6379 times)

cantatedomino · « **on:** June 03, 2014, 06:08:42 PM »

For quite some time now I have been expressing, through a catchphrase, what I consider to be the fundamental fact upon which must turn absolutely everything every faithful Catholic thinks, says, and does: THEY AIN'T CATHOLIC.

Now it appears that Brother Peter Dimond, hereinafter BPD, in a very entertaining blitzkrieg on Robert Siscoe's recent attempt to argue his way around SV claims, has provided a series of thought provoking guidelines for further consideration on the matter. It seems to me that he is arguing - and proving - simply that: THEY AIN'T CATHOLIC.

First of all, here is the blitzkrieg, for your perusal:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vx4a0Szsawc#t=29[/youtube]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2014, 06:13:24 PM »

I have many questions for the menfolk here. Perhaps they would be so kind as to shed some light.

OBSERVATION: BPD's thesis in this presentation is not that "the Chair is vacant." Rather it is that Bergoglio and his immediate predecessors are not Catholic (They Ain't Catholic).

Quoting Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum (13) [minute 1:57] which states in relevant part that [St. Augustine] "denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman Faith can be a Catholic: You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held," BPD makes the following observation:

"Francis does not teach that the Faith of Rome, the Catholic Faith, is to be held. He teaches the opposite. He has explicitly rejected converting atheists, Jews, schismatics, and others many times . . . He therefore teaches that non-Catholics do not need to hold the Faith of Rome. "According to Catholic teaching he is not to be considered a Catholic. It's that simple." [minute 2:05 et. seq.]

Now I cannot agree with BPD more; it really is that simple: They Ain't Catholic.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2014, 06:14:25 PM »

OBSERVATION: BPD states that "Siscoe and the Remnant tell you that he is to be considered a Catholic, despite his teaching that the Faith of Rome is not to be held." [minute 2:30 et. seq.] He also qualifies their acts as those of those who "obstinately teach that Francis is to be considered a member of the Catholic Church," and who, by doing so "deny . . . Catholic teaching." [minute 2:30 et. seq.]

QUESTION 1: Does R&R uniformly hold, as part of its positive platform of affirmed premises, that the Vatican II popes are Catholics and members of the Catholic Church?

NOTE: I am specifically NOT asking if R&R affirms these men are popes. I already know that it does so affirm. My question is exclusively whether R&R affirms they are Catholics. [/b]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2014, 06:32:28 PM »

OBSERVATION: BPD's presentation is narrowly focused on "examining the Catholic Church's teaching on professing the true Faith." [minute 1:24 et. seq.]

BPD affirms that "the Catholic Church teaches that only those who are baptized and profess the true Faith can be considered members of the Catholic Church." [1:28 et. seq.] He cites Mystici Corporis (22) as his authority for this affirmation:

MYSTICI CORPORIS (22): Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those [who] are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2014, 06:43:20 PM »

My sense of the thing is that R&R has, for decades, been dancing around this unfortunate fact: They Ain't Catholic.

R&R simply cannot affirm this.

But that is terribly, patently, and culpably dishonest.

When has R&R ever told the truth?

R&R, because of its essential falsity, breeds dishonesty and all manner of other hidden agendas.

R&R, in order to operate, requires that heretics be Catholics.

R&R violates the First Principle of Reason: Identity-Contradiction.

R&R is: 2=5