Author Topic: SISCOES FOLLY? (Read 6743 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2014, 08:12:26 PM »

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2014, 08:21:23 PM »

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.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2014, 08:58:14 PM »

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.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2014, 09:14:16 PM »

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.

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2014, 06:56:50 AM »

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.