Author Topic: The Heavyweights Battle over SedevacantismCanonizations: (Read 8109 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** April 29, 2014, 10:46:54 PM »

Not that I actually expect to get anything but partisan answers from both sides, but perhaps the honest among us (who will probably refrain from commenting) will get something out of it.

Many excellent punches/counter-punches, until the inevitable descent into verbal sparring.

But much good discussion before that:

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

Ambrose · « **Reply #1 on:** April 29, 2014, 11:52:24 PM »

John Lane is a heavyweight, I do not see the same in Robert Siscoe. I also found Mr. Siscoe to be rude and arrogant in the exchange.

Not think I think Mr. Siscoe is stupid or lacks education, but he is clearly driven by an agenda, something that John Lane is not. One must examine himself, and ask the question, is my only goal the truth, or is it to defend the party line of post-Lefebvre SSPX?

I have been reading John Lane's writings for a very long time, and the only concern he has is to the truth. He loves theology, and thinks like a Catholic by rigorously adhering to approved sources. He is also grounded in philosophy, which lays the correct fertile ground to properly understand theology.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2014, 06:23:20 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

John Lane is a heavyweight, I do not see the same in Robert Siscoe. I also found Mr. Siscoe to be rude and arrogant in the exchange.

Not think I think Mr. Siscoe is stupid or lacks education, but he is clearly driven by an agenda, something that John Lane is not. One must examine himself, and ask the question, is my only goal the truth, or is it to defend the party line of post-Lefebvre SSPX?

I have been reading John Lane's writings for a very long time, and the only concern he has is to the truth. He loves theology, and thinks like a Catholic by rigorously adhering to approved sources. He is also grounded in philosophy, which lays the correct fertile ground to properly understand theology.

I believe Mr. Siscoe levels these exact same charges against Mr. Lane in the exchange cited.

So no advantage either way there.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2014, 06:50:57 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

John Lane is a heavyweight, I do not see the same in Robert Siscoe. I also <snip>

I think this has the potential to be a good debate. I agree with you that among laity John Lane has been one of the top sede heavyweights to emerge on the Internet 20 years ago and come is clearly well-read. But Siscoe also brings name recognition from several R&R venues for which he writes. Thus I think if Siscoe were to bulk up on his background knowledge of Catholic Tradition, he might be able to go toe-to-toe with Lane.

Also, I agree Lane is a gentleman in debate and for the most part always has been. Rarely have I seen him lured into the internet equivalent of a street fight. So my suggestion to a potential R&R opponent is to maintain the high road with Lane. Otherwise - since Lane is both well-read and a gentleman - any attempt to get under Lane's skin will simply appear as concession one is unable to keep up with Lane over substance.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2014, 06:52:01 AM »

Mr. Siscoe was not actively engaged in this topic on the Bellarmine Forum. He wrote an article in Catholic Family News that was reprinted here. Mr. Lane responded. Other posters, taking Siscoe's side in the matter, attempted to refute Lane's response.

The rudeness and arrogance in the exchange does not involve Mr. Siscoe but his defenders. And, yes, his defenders would attribute the rudeness and arrogance to Mr. Lane.

The "RJS" poster is not Robert Siscoe. He is a long time member of the Bellarmine Forum who happens to use a screen name that look like initials that might be Robert Siscoe but he is not.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2014, 07:07:35 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

The "RJS" poster is not Robert Siscoe. He is a long time member of the Bellarmine Forum who happens to use a screen name that look like initials that might be Robert Siscoe but he is not.

Thanks for this clarification TKGS! Much appreciated.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2014, 07:32:15 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Mr. Siscoe was not actively engaged in this topic on the Bellarmine Forum. He wrote an article in Catholic Family News that was reprinted here. Mr. Lane responded. Other posters, taking Siscoe's side in the matter, attempted to refute Lane's response.

The rudeness and arrogance in the exchange does not involve Mr. Siscoe but his defenders. And, yes, his defenders would attribute the rudeness and arrogance to Mr. Lane.

The "RJS" poster is not Robert Siscoe. He is a long time member of the Bellarmine Forum who happens to use a screen name that look like initials that might be Robert Siscoe but he is not.

Ahhhh!!!

I did not know that!

Whoever he is, he certainly seems to be able to hold his own (and then some) against Mr. Lane.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2014, 07:37:50 AM »

Sean,

Will you quote something from "RJS" that you think really exemplifies him "holding his own?" A quote from him, not a quote of him giving a quote.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2014, 09:48:27 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

Will you quote something from "RJS" that you think really exemplifies him "holding his own?" A quote from him, not a quote of him giving a quote.

Seriously?

SeanJohnson, if he replies to this, will quote some statement by RJS that was irrelevant to the actual topic or one that was immediately quashed by Mr. Lane, or, more likely, one that was not supported by any theologian ever that is his personal opinion and tell you how this was "holding his own".

It seems to me that many people have a new First Commandment: Thou shalt not be a sedevacantist and all dogma and doctrines may be adjusted in order to enforce this commandment.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2014, 10:44:18 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

Will you quote something from "RJS" that you think really exemplifies him "holding his own?" A quote from him, not a quote of him giving a quote.

Mith-

The OP links the thread in which their exchanges occur.

If you have read it, and still think RJS has been totally destroyed, then it really serves no point for me to quote snippets to you.

All that will happen is that we will get into a snippet war.

Suffice it to say that, right or wrong, I found RJS to be quite persuasive.

If you did not, no worries.

Pax

Mabel · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2014, 11:54:21 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean,

Will you quote something from "RJS" that you think really exemplifies him "holding his own?" A quote from him, not a quote of him giving a quote.

Truly. I was not impressed.

Since TKGS said that RJS is not Sicscoe...I'm wondering if he is actually another poster that doesn't even hold the position and article he is defending, or appearing to defend.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2014, 03:47:34 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

If you have read it, and still think RJS has been totally destroyed <...>

I think totally destroyed is an exaggeration. John Lane is a more measured debater who adapts to his opponent's style rather than go for the knock-out punch and risk over-extending himself.

Thus if I were scoring this based upon three rounds so far, I would give 30-25 to Lane over RJS.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2014, 04:52:29 PM »

Is RJS the same person as R. J. Stove? Stove has written for the Remnant in the past.

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** April 30, 2014, 08:07:44 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: TKGS
The "RJS" poster is not Robert Siscoe. He is a long time member of the Bellarmine Forum who happens to use a screen name that look like initials that might be Robert Siscoe but he is not.

Thanks for this clarification TKGS! Much appreciated.

I'm not so sure this is correct. I had a number of email exchanges with Siscoe and I'm pretty sure he was joining BF around in October 2007, which is when RJS joined BF. He makes some of the exact same arguments in the same style as Siscoe did with me.

I don't suppose it matters if RJS is Siscoe, but I don't think you can say he isn't Siscoe.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** April 30, 2014, 08:13:57 PM »

The below quote was addessed to me back in 2007. I think it gives a pretty good indication of Siscoe's motivation and mindset.

Quote from: Siscoe

Think about this: Do you or I really think God will be angry with us if we suspend judgment on the situation of the seemingly heretical Popes?

I think prudence would require that we hold them suspect of heresy and be cautious with regard to them, but going further and declaring them to have lost their office through the crime of heresy, when none of the Cardinals have done so, seems presumptuous and potentially dangerous to me. One of the dangers, and this is what I told Gerry Matatics, is that by taking the firm position that the Pope is an anti-Pope and that the Conciliar Church is the Whore of Babylon is that you will not want the Church to improve. In fact, any improvement will be viewed as a trick to draw in the unwary. Therefore, the person will actually be against the Church, and desirous that it falls. That is one psychological effect that Sedevacantism will produce. On the contrary, if you suspend judgment you will not fall into that mentality. You will then be able to appreciate any good (such as Summorum Pontificuм), rather than considering every good merely a trick to bring those with the faith into the false fold. I think it is best not to make a firm conclusion with respect to the Pope. Maybe he did lose his office through heresy, but I personally don't think I have enough information to draw that conclusion.