Quote from: Mithrandylan

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=1606

Siscoe'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.  

deleted

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?

I'm asking, because that's what I got out of the first fifteen minutes or so.

Yes, this is correct.

[Dimond] doesn't actually touch on whether or not these men are Catholic (or popes).  

That is correct, and that is why I find his presentation useful.

I think I know what Siscoe is trying to do. He is going after the First (and true) Premise of SV: They Ain't Catholic.

Like the SV's he tries to rebut, he is looking for logical closure. He possibly thinks that he cannot reach logical closure (except SV) if he admits the truth of the First Premise. Wherefore he seeks to falsify it in order to avoid having to arrive at the SV conclusion.

Dimond is sticking in this presentation to the defense of the truth of the First Premise, and I'm very happy he is doing that, because the truth of the First Premise of SV is what is hotly (and erroneously) denied by R&R. Their denial of this truth is what produces all of their bad fruits.

NOTE: This denial is sometimes explicit, and quite often implicit.

I am not promoting Dimond's presentation as the answer to any ultimate question. As I said, he is providing quite a lot of food for thought. I want to hear all arguments for the truth of the First Premise.

Siscoe is trying to come up with a reasoned analysis that falsifies the Premise. He has put forth more effort than many R&R proponents, who do more sidestepping. I commend him for trying, but he is not even remotely convincing. I agree with Dimond that he is blowing a lot of hot air. I also suspect that Dimond is right in calling out his argument as one that is novel and not backed up by Magisterial teaching authority.  

Food for thought is what Tradition sorely needs, because Tradition has bogged itself down into two unsatisfactory positions that seem, at this late hour, to exist, not for the propagation and defense of the Faith, but solely to contradict one another.  

Tradition has stopped multiplying. It is now in a terrible state of division, corruption, disrepair, and contraction. I hold that the sorry state of the Catholic counter-revolution is due entirely to endless artificial and sophistical posturing, at the expense of the propagation and defense of the integral Catholic Faith.  

Neither SV nor R&R has been able to pull the Church out of Her tailspin. By their fruits we see that God is not happy with our current modes of operation.  

I'm going to continue going through Dimond's presentation because I think he frames some excellent questions.

Thanks for your responses, Mith!

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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?

I'm asking, because that's what I got out of the first fifteen minutes or so.

Yes, this is correct.

That's unfortunate.

BPD should be more eager to learn the faith from those deputed to explain it, rather than try to grapple with all the primary sources himself, as if he had the proper authority and or training to explain it.  As it stands, he is explaining things quite differently than the theologians, especially the theologians who wrote after Mystici Corporis Christi was written, which he ironically (and erroneously) bases his opinion on.

Recommended reading on the matter of who is and isn't a member: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church

It's a stupid argument to even focus on.  In the first place, I believe Siscoe's bringing up the point that internal (by which I imagine he means occult/secret) heretics don't lose membership (aren't severed from the Body) was just in the interest of completeness and maybe in trying to get some credibility from his readers early on; because in the second place it's simply ridiculous (and I think even Siscoe realizes how ridiculous this would be) to argue that the conciliar claimants are merely occult heretics and therefore still members.  Besides, he goes on to frame his main "argument" around the fact they are public heretics, but there is a legal stumbling block which keeps them from being non-popes (or, more accurately, "keeps" us from being able to say they are) so it's pretty obvious that Siscoe is not actually making an argument by claiming that secret heretics don't lose membership, he's merely pointing it out for some reason or another.

And he's right!  That was a waste of fifteen minutes to try to disprove him on this point.  A better route would have been to leave the issue alone (since it's not instrumental to Siscoe's main argument in the first place) OR if BPD actually thought that Siscoe's inclusion of the effect of secret heresy was an argument in itself, to point out that the conciliar claimant's heresy is resoundingly public-- and public heretics DO lose membership.  And non-members can't be pope.

Quote from: J Paul

I think they will move from this point to say, "but they think they are Catholic" and they can't be heretics because, " they don't know that they are heretics."

Everyone these days is saved in one manner or another, by their "ignorance"
And, how could they be real heretics when their church is not real, but only a "tendency".

R&R has so many escape hatches for the Conciliar popes that it must have been conceived under an exit ramp.

Well, it's ridiculous to argue that men who were raised in pre-conciliar Catholicism are ignorant of the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith-- the first commandment, which they have all publicly broken in deed (an act of public heresy by worshipping with false religions) and often in word as well by (e.g.) acknowledging the current legitimacy of the Jєωιѕн religion.

But because it will lead to confusion later on, it should be kept in mind that whether or not a man can be saved and whether or not a man can be pope are two separate questions.  Membership (and maleness) are requisites to being pope-- I know non and anti sedevacantists typically argue that these are just "bad" popes and we've had "bad" popes before-- essentially they end up accusing sedevacantists of being Donatists.  Thing is, a man could be true pope and be the worst human being alive.  He could pad the Vatican bank with sex-trafficking, solicit married women (or men), commit clandestine murders (or even public ones) and be a cannibal and still be a member of the Church.  What he can't do is cease to profess the Catholic faith publicly.  That's literally the one thing he can't do.  And these men have done it.  What does that tell you?

I appreciate your responses here. They pack a lot of information.

I'm still working my way through the preceding pages.

From a quick scan of what you have written here, I will have some questions for you.

Give me a little time to plow through and think.  

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.

I'd love to read them.

Can you provide links?

Thanks.

Siscoe'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 . . .

Okay! That's what I get for not reading your whole post first!!!!!

Son of a gun!!!!

Siscoe dodged the bullet!!

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be back later. Gotta go ride the bicycle!

CD,

Forgive the physical length of this post, but I'm not saying a whole lot, just compiling all of your replies into one reply.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

BPD has an interesting simplification of Siscoe's article, but my preferred simplification is: "Even if these men are not Catholic and not popes, you have to keep it to yourself."

In other words, even if it's true, you can't talk about it.  

Your simplification indeed encapsulates the inherent duplicity of R&R.

R&R is a great example to give to demonstrate the meaning of the colloquialism: The Elephant in the Room.

I've been thinking a lot about whether there is a position or program of Catholic counter-revolution that avoids the pitfalls of both SV and R&R: Those pitfalls being division; internecine warfare; cafeteria defense of pet errors; failure to recognize, comprehend, defend, and teach the entire Deposit of Faith; growing ignorance among clergy and layfolk; stagnation of Catholic action; contraction - both numerical and doctrinal.

The working title for the new position is: PROPAGATE AND DENOUNCE

PROPAGATE: BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY - NUMERICALLY AND DOCTRINALLY

DENOUNCE: HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED, HE SHALL BE SAVED: BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT SHALL BE CONDEMNED

If I may, the "pitfalls" you describe are really just symptomatic of not having a pope.  As the scriptures say, "when the shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter."  And scatter they have.  The pet errors and other prideful clinging to political positions would, in normal times, receive rebukes from lawful authorities and the offenders would either shape up or face punishment-- and, most offenders presumably (hopefully!) being good Catholics, they would shape up.  I don't anticipate an improvement in these pitfalls until the restoration occurs, if that is God's will (I like to think that it is).

Quote from: Mithrandylan

[Dimond] doesn't actually touch on whether or not these men are Catholic (or popes).  

That is correct, and that is why I find his presentation useful.

I think I know what Siscoe is trying to do. He is going after the First (and true) Premise of SV: They Ain't Catholic.

Like the SV's he tries to rebut, he is looking for logical closure. He possibly thinks that he cannot reach logical closure (except SV) if he admits the truth of the First Premise. Wherefore he seeks to falsify it in order to avoid having to arrive at the SV conclusion.

Dimond is sticking in this presentation to the defense of the truth of the First Premise, and I'm very happy he is doing that, because the truth of the First Premise of SV is what is hotly (and erroneously) denied by R&R. Their denial of this truth is what produces all of their bad fruits.

NOTE: This denial is sometimes explicit, and quite often implicit.

I am not promoting Dimond's presentation as the answer to any ultimate question. As I said, he is providing quite a lot of food for thought. I want to hear all arguments for the truth of the First Premise.

Siscoe is trying to come up with a reasoned analysis that falsifies the Premise. He has put forth more effort than many R&R proponents, who do more sidestepping. I commend him for trying, but he is not even remotely convincing. I agree with Dimond that he is blowing a lot of hot air. I also suspect that Dimond is right in calling out his argument as one that is novel and not backed up by Magisterial teaching authority.  

Food for thought is what Tradition sorely needs, because Tradition has bogged itself down into two unsatisfactory positions that seem, at this late hour, to exist, not for the propagation and defense of the Faith, but solely to contradict one another.  

Tradition has stopped multiplying. It is now in a terrible state of division, corruption, disrepair, and contraction. I hold that the sorry state of the Catholic counter-revolution is due entirely to endless artificial and sophistical posturing, at the expense of the propagation and defense of the integral Catholic Faith.  

Neither SV nor R&R has been able to pull the Church out of Her tailspin. By their fruits we see that God is not happy with our current modes of operation.  

I'm going to continue going through Dimond's presentation because I think he frames some excellent questions.

Thanks for your responses, Mith!

As you seem to remark later, the comment you quoted of mine was actually referring to Siscoe, not BPD.  

I don't think that Siscoe is touching on the first premise of sedevacantism, and I would also say that I think one can argue for the sedevacantist case in more than one way, but there are two major ones: the one we are dealing with now, which is that these "popes" themselves are not Catholic and either fell from office due to public heresy, or, much more likely the case, never possessed it to begin with (especially in the cases of Ratzinger, Bergoglio and Wojtyla).  Then another argument is that the doctrines of VII, and especially the True Mass cannot be products of the Catholic Church, therefore the men who issued and approved them cannot possibly be popes (because a true pope would be prevented from doing such a thing).  

I honestly think that the second way is probably, overall, a more effective way of arguing.  That isn't to say that the first is not effective, I just think the second is more effective.

As far as Siscoe not using magisterial docuмents, that doesn't really bother me.  He used theologians, which he should.  If he has some encyclical or council that supports him, then he can cite that but the truth of the matter is that this is a very specialized and localized issue, and there aren't any encyclicals or papal docuмents that deal in great depth with these issues.  Not from his side, that is!  But the fact that he relies on theologians is not a problem.  That he quotes them very selectively and out of context to make them appear to agree with him, that's another matter entirely.  But the Dimond's did the same thing with Pius XII in that video, to try to make him appear to teach that private heretics lose membership.  This is why the theologians exist.  They (especially in the plural) can be used to properly understand primary docuмents like encyclicals when there is a point of dispute.

Not to spin off too much, but I'm not sure that the fact that neither SV or R&R has been able to stop the "tailspin" of the Church is a good argument against either.  I honestly do not know what will cause the restoration, but if it is God's will I have a difficult time thinking anything other than a major catastrophic event will.  Nuclear war eliminating most of the world's population, leaving alive mainly faithful Catholics and the true successors to the apostles to rebuild the Church, some other man-made disaster such as a war resulting in the death/and or dethroning of the Vatican usurpers, some natural disaster which has the same effect or even a massive and worldwide (or darn near) apparition of sorts.  The Church's credibility is shot, as it were.  No one will take her seriously if the heretics in Rome just "convert" on a dime, and repudiate everything that happened over the last fifty years.  At least, in my opinion.  A massive and worldwide catastrophe from which the Church emerges triumphant, on the other hand, would definitely have that effect; even moreso were it accompanied by some blatant sign of the supernatural (e.g. an apparition).  Point being, the last thing on most trads minds is actually taking action to solve the problem.  And I can't say I blame them: what can one do?  Honest question.  I think we're all waiting for a miracle.

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.

I'd love to read them.

Can you provide links?

Thanks.

Pretty sure TKGS is referring to the bright boys on Bellarmine Forums work:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1606&sid=e4fc601b200c606fef917b4483fa89d4

Siscoe himself got involved in the thread (RJS).  He, shall we say, revealed his character?  The man has no business writing Catholic articles.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

[Siscoe is] surely not trying to argue that these men are Catholic because their heresy is secret, it's anything but secret.  

Just curious - did you read Siscoe's article? I have not.

R&R is a true no man's land, in that it' duplicity prevents it from answering unequivocally the question: Are They Catholic?

Do you think it is possible that Siscoe's article amounts to an absolute failure either to say They Ain't Catholic or They Is Catholic?

Does he comes out clearly for one or the other of these propositions?

Because surely, surely, surely to goodness, no one should take up the sword in this arena without a firm conviction one way or the other.  

No?

Yes, I have read it.  I read it first when Sean Johnson posted it as the most recent "Death Knell" to sedevacantism, among several other death knells it received in quite a short amount of time.  I have not read it for probably two weeks so it isn't that fresh in my mind.

Essentially, Siscoe is content to argue a paralyzing legal technicality.  He doesn't quite admit that they are public heretics (though he might as well have) but insists that even if they are, we can't regard them as such (and therefore can't regard them as antipopes) until the proper authorities admonish him (give him two warnings).  And even then, I think he confuses the theological dispute over how such a man is "removed" from the office he "holds" (he isn't really holding it, of course) with actually judging a pope (not a "pope") as a heretic-- something which cannot be done, since the pope has no judge on earth.  It's really a mess, to be honest.

As far as the warnings theory goes (to be a public heretic one must be warned twice by the proper authorities), his own source argues against him.  Siscoe claims the admonishments have to come from some sort of ecclesiastical authority when the theologian he quotes on the issue actually says anyone can give the warning-- but of course, Siscoe doesn't quote his source saying that.  This is all dealt with on the Bellarmine thread, as well.  But even if that were true, what was Archbishop Lefebvre, de Castro Meyer and the conservative fathers at Vatican II doing if not admonishing these men?

It's really a joke.  And what he's left with, as a conclusion, is having not dealt at all with whether or not these men are Catholic (or the second argument I alluded to earlier, which is whether or not the laws and liturgies and doctrines they've issued could have come from a Catholic pope) but has instead decided to rest his case on the idea that even if they were(anti-popes), we can't say that they are.  It's a blatant disregard for the truth, which can never detract from God's glory.  

So, I suppose I didn't answer your question as to whether or not he actually affirms or denies the statement "these men are Catholic."  That's because he sidesteps the entire issue.  He seems to admit that they aren't, tacitly, in the fact that he has written an article that takes as a premise that these men are public heretics, we just can't regard them as such.  I mean, none of this would even be relevant if they hadn't committed such offenses, would it?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Siscoe'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 . . .

Okay! That's what I get for not reading your whole post first!!!!!

Son of a gun!!!!

Siscoe dodged the bullet!!

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be back later. Gotta go ride the bicycle!

Well, that bullet has caught up to him with anyone who isn't content to take his word for it.  

Have a fun ride!