Author Topic: SISCOES FOLLY? (Read 6380 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2014, 06:58:18 PM »

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?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2014, 07:11:24 PM »

OBSERVATION: Siscoe argues that one is only severed from the body of the Church by a "declared heresy," a formal heresy in the external forum. This declared heresy is either an actual declaration of heresy by a Church authority, or a self-declaration of heresy by an individual. [5:18 et. seq.]

I think it is important to distinguish here between two questions: Is he pope? Is he Catholic?

Siscoe is attempting to answer the first question in the affirmative by answering the second question in the affirmative.

Siscoe's line of argumentation is geared towards "saving the Catholic appearance."

He is attacking the first, and true, premise of SV: They Aint Catholic.

Interestingly the second question, "Is he Catholic?" is the one that is easy to answer - that is, easy simply but difficult politically.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2014, 07:29:28 PM »

BPD well sums up the R&R position as follows: If you claim to be a Catholic, and thus have not declared yourself a heretic by openly leaving the Church, and if you have not been declared a heretic by a Church authority, you cannot be considered a heretic who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, no matter what you say, do, or believe. [screen shot minute 7:32]

OBSERVATION: Common sense enlightened by faith confirms with absolute certitude that They Ain't Catholic. Yet R&R men argue until they bore the world to tears that there are millions of ways to "save the Catholic appearance."

QUESTION: Does R&R blow so hard on this point because they believe that if they concede it, they will have to concede the entire SV conclusion?

Indeed the first premise of the SV is the true amphitheater.

As times goes by; and as the heresy becomes more and more public, malignant, and flagrant; and as more and more R&R men surrender to modernism and go down in flame and shame; the position becomes more and more patently absurd, more and more unreal, more and more dissimulous, more and more dishonorable.

The refusal to admit the truth of the First Premise is more effectively dividing Tradition than any other factor.

Yet I have recently heard some good priests calling spades, spades; and I love them for it.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2014, 07:37:38 PM »

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.

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.

From there, he hopes to imply that it's false since there's something "wrong" about believing it, but he doesn't actually touch on whether or not these men are Catholic (or popes). He just says that we can't have the opinion that they aren't.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2014, 07:48:34 PM »

The sedevacantist position is schismatic. It has been said that schism is a sin against charity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Dimond "brothers" have no charity.