Is Dimond relaying Siscoe's argument that an internal heretic is not expelled from the Body of the Church, and then arguing that it does?
The video uses incredibly sloppy language.
I listened to the a few minutes of the video and it seems that it is saying that Siscoe claims that a person who publicly proclaims heresy cannot be considered a heretic because, until he's been judged by a competent authority, the heresy is, by definition, internal.
But it also seems that the Dimonds are arguing that an internal heretic is expelled from the Body of the Church rather than arguing that when a person who publicly expresses his heresy it is no longer internal since it is, obviously, public.
Their language in this video is not precise and, quite frankly, makes their arguments against Siscoe weak. There are other written refutations of Siscoe's thesis that are precise and strong that one should not resort to these people for their arguments.
This is what I took away from the first fifteen minutes or so. They quote Siscoe talking about internal heresy "only expelling one from the soul of the Church" and go right into talking about how heresy unqualified, which usually refers to public heresy, expels one from the Church (citing MCC no. 23) but since it comes in immediate rebuttal to Siscoe's qualification of "internal heretic" the context suggests that they're also referring to internal heresy (and arguing it expels one from the Body of the Church, i.e., it causes one to lose membership which it definitely
doesn't). This is an essential distinction which this particular argument against these conciliar claimants rests, and to gloss over it is a serious blunder.
I think all Siscoe was doing by saying that internal heretics are expelled from the soul of the Church (I'm not sure if this is the best expression) is to narrow the focus of his article down to public heretics. I mean, it's the height of ridiculousness to contend that any of these men are secret heretics, and I don't think Siscoe is
that inept. He's surely not trying to argue that these men are Catholic because their heresy is
secret, it's anything
but secret. And I think in Peter Dimond's zeal to "demolish Siscoe's heretical arguments" he wanted to basically disprove everything that Siscoe said. I think there's an old axiom along the lines of "he who proves too much doesn't prove anything at all" which might apply here.
I was also displeased with Peter Dimond's disdain for the theologians. He says that Siscoe does not engage the papal magisterium because he can't. True enough, but Dimond seems to have set himself up as a theologian and deems himself capable and competent to deal only in primary texts to the exclusion of theologians whom he calls "fallible men" in the video. That's beside the point. The theologians explain and expound upon the primary texts and are indispensable in understanding most of these issues, so that Siscoe used them is not a problem. Of course, the way in which he uses them is offensive because he really does copy and paste a ton of irrelevant and unrelated quotes to make his argument. This has been dealt with in great detail on this thread:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606Siscoe's argument seems to be a perfect summation of the anti-sedevacantist thesis at this point (after what, fifty years?). He has completely left alone the question of whether or not these men are Catholics (which their papacy is directly dependent upon) and instead chooses to argue that
even if they aren't we can't say they're not popes. He uses a paralyzing legal formula to "prove" nothing except that we can't
say these men aren't popes.
Cantate Domino is right to draw attention to the question "are they Catholic?" And if that's not specific enough, are they members of the Church? Are they baptized and do they profess the true faith in submission to lawful authorities? All who do so are, in the strict sense, Catholics and members of the Catholic Church. It's telling that no one wants to answer that question.
Topic: SISCOES FOLLY? (Read 6383 times)