Author Topic: SISCOES FOLLY? (Read 6365 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #20 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:02:45 PM »

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

cantatedomino · « **Reply #21 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:23:15 PM »

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!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:24:24 PM »

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?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:29:41 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2014, 05:32:11 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: cantatedomino
QUESTION 2: Siscoe is employing a distinction in his article: soul of the Church versus body of the Church. Is this a valid distinction? And if it is a valid distinction, has it traditionally been employed to differentiate between particular effects or consequences of heresy in individuals?

I think the main way this distinction has been used is as regards BOD, and that catechumens who die before baptism belong to the soul of the Church (but not the body). The exemplary Mgr. Fenton has shown the problems in referring to it this way http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/BodyandSoul.pdf . I am not sure if there is a proper and orthodox understanding of the Soul/Body distinction as concerns membership, but it's all a moot point for our consideration since what matters for the government of the Church is that a man be a member of the Church in the strict sense, which means that he be baptized and profess the true faith outwardly. He could be the most wicked man to ever live, soliciting young boys and cannibalizing cardinals he didn't get along with and still be pope, because he would still be a member in the strict sense so long as he outwardly professed the faith. But when he ceases to outwardly profess the faith (who could deny this is the case from Paul VI onwards?) he is no longer a member of the Church.

Again, I am going to have to do some reading, so bear with me.

Your posts are very helpful.

Thanks!