Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: SISCOES FOLLY?  (Read 4424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cantatedomino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1019
  • Reputation: +0/-1
SISCOES FOLLY?
« on: June 03, 2014, 06:08:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #1 on: June 03, 2014, 06:13:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.




    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #2 on: June 03, 2014, 06:14:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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]

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #3 on: June 03, 2014, 06:32:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #4 on: June 03, 2014, 06:43:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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  



    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #5 on: June 03, 2014, 06:58:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #6 on: June 03, 2014, 07:11:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  



       



     



    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #7 on: June 03, 2014, 07:29:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3500
    • Reputation: +4125/-262
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #8 on: June 03, 2014, 07:37:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.



    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline MarylandTrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 198
    • Reputation: +214/-47
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #9 on: June 03, 2014, 07:48:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a man who thinks other people can get along without It. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who thinks he needs It but someone else does not. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who offers others any charity ahead of this Charity of the Bread of Life." -Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3716/-290
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #10 on: June 03, 2014, 08:12:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Observation: R&R does not allow for the pope to be a heretic, thus you have the circular arguments as to why when he is heretical, he really isn't.


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3500
    • Reputation: +4125/-262
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #11 on: June 03, 2014, 08:21:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Pete Vere

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 579
    • Reputation: +187/-2
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #12 on: June 03, 2014, 08:58:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MarylandTrad
    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.


    I find it easier to believe that R&R is schismatic than sedevacantism.

    The principle, found in Tradition and canon law, is quite clear: "The First See is judged by no one." This is interpreted to be understand that one cannot judge a Roman Pontiff.

    Now sedes do not believe the individual who they judge is the Roman Pontiff. In fact, in their personal judgment he is not the Roman Pontiff. So subjectively, in their minds, sedes are not judging the Roman Pontiff.

    In contrast, R&R adherents recognize the Roman Pontiff as such. Even when they engage in doctrine sifting.  Essentially they judge when the Roman Pontiff is in conformity with Apostolic Tradition and when he is not. This judgment even extends to areas where traditionally the Roman Pontiff is understood to be acting infallibly, such as with the recent papal canonizations of Sts John XXIII and John Paul II. To me this seems a lot closer to a schismatic position than judging someone that one does not believe to be pope.

     

    Offline MarylandTrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 198
    • Reputation: +214/-47
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #13 on: June 03, 2014, 09:14:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Pete Vere
    Quote from: MarylandTrad
    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.


    I find it easier to believe that R&R is schismatic than sedevacantism.

    The principle, found in Tradition and canon law, is quite clear: "The First See is judged by no one." This is interpreted to be understand that one cannot judge a Roman Pontiff.

    Now sedes do not believe the individual who they judge is the Roman Pontiff. In fact, in their personal judgment he is not the Roman Pontiff. So subjectively, in their minds, sedes are not judging the Roman Pontiff.

    In contrast, R&R adherents recognize the Roman Pontiff as such. Even when they engage in doctrine sifting.  Essentially they judge when the Roman Pontiff is in conformity with Apostolic Tradition and when he is not. This judgment even extends to areas where traditionally the Roman Pontiff is understood to be acting infallibly, such as with the recent papal canonizations of Sts John XXIII and John Paul II. To me this seems a lot closer to a schismatic position than judging someone that one does not believe to be pope.

     


    You are proof that liberals and sedevacantists really are allies, something that many honorable leaders of the traditional movement have already pointed out.
    "The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a man who thinks other people can get along without It. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who thinks he needs It but someone else does not. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who offers others any charity ahead of this Charity of the Bread of Life." -Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4497
    • Reputation: +3870/-339
    • Gender: Male
    SISCOES FOLLY?
    « Reply #14 on: June 04, 2014, 06:56:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16