Author Topic: Calling Out Pete Vere: (Read 17158 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** May 28, 2014, 07:46:08 AM »

Hello Pete-

Since on the one hand, you claim to be an indultarian;

And since that position is incompatible with sedevacantism;

Yet on the other hand, you claim all the R&R arguments against sedevacantism are insufficient;

Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.

PS: Please be sure to use the same rigor you claim the sedevacantists use, and be sure to avoid the emotionalism you claim the R&R camp uses.

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2014, 07:59:37 AM »

If Pete is an indult man, then he too is in the R&R camp, although in its milder form.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:04:07 AM »

So let's hear his refutation of sedevacantism...if he really has one.

It seems incongruous to me a man would chastise the SSPX for being "more Catholic than the pope," yet not bat an eyelash against those who say there hasn't been a pope for 55+ years.

But to take the indultarian position, it presupposes he has refuted/rejected the sedevcantist position.

But since he is not satisfied with the R&R arguments, I would like to read his own non-emotionalized refutation.

JPaul · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:48:12 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

So let's hear his refutation of sedevacantism...if he really has one.

It seems incongruous to me a man would chastise the SSPX for being "more Catholic than the pope," yet not bat an eyelash against those who say there hasn't been a pope for 55+ years.

But to take the indultarian position, it presupposes he has refuted/rejected the sedevcantist position.

But since he is not satisfied with the R&R arguments, I would like to read his own non-emotionalized refutation.

Well there are those considerations as well. We'll see.

soulguard · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:02:38 AM »

Phariseeism.

Luker · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:08:11 AM »

I suspect Pete Vere's argument would boil down to the fact that the Vatican II council and the changes thereafter posited no substantial changes to the Catholic Church, all the novelties and abuses regrettable as they may be, are only accidental to the nature of the Church.

However, I would certainly be interested in reading Pete's own defense of why he went from SSPX to Ecclesia Dei, rather than sedevacantist.

:cheers:

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2014, 11:27:41 AM »

I tried this a few times. He never responds. He rather waits on the sidelines throwing punches against the SSPX trying to give fuel to sedevacantists. With intentions like that, I would like to see him off of the subgroup SSPX resistance.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:02:34 PM »

I think this thread is taking the wrong tone. If someone wants to debate Peter Vere, then IM him. If Peter Vere brings the topic up in a thread, then present your side.

This whole "calling out" people is primarily for the playground. :wink:

Even though Mr. Vere is an indultarian and a novus ordite and a conciliarist, I actually enjoy reading his posts. I recently read the book he co-authored with Patrick Madrid and am wondering whether or not to address a particular issue in the book but, if I do follow up and ask him, it will be in the IM or it would be in a more even tempered manner than this thread and its title.

I think I prefer :cheers: or :pc: over :boxer:.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2014, 04:46:44 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.

http://www.amazon.fr/Liberte-Religieuse-Tradition-Catholique-Vol/dp/2906972231/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401313481&sr=1-4

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2014, 04:57:58 PM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.

http://www.amazon.fr/Liberte-Religieuse-Tradition-Catholique-Vol/dp/2906972231/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401313481&sr=1-4

Pete-

I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.

Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?

In which case, is not your choice of indultarianism is based on the very emotionalism you accuse Bishop Williamson and the R&R crowd of.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2014, 05:08:21 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Hello Pete-

Since on the one hand, you claim to be an indultarian;

And since that position is incompatible with sedevacantism;

Yet on the other hand, you claim all the R&R arguments against sedevacantism are insufficient;

Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.

PS: Please be sure to use the same rigor you claim the sedevacantists use, and be sure to avoid the emotionalism you claim the R&R camp uses.

I realize that "calling people out" puts a nasty taste in the mouths of many.

HOWEVER, I think Sean Johnson has a very serious point here.

Pete Vere seems to be a very anti-SSPX individual who has allied himself with the sedevacantists when it suits his cause. He claims he's not encouraging sedevacantism, but it's not open for debate: He most certainly is.

He can pretend that is not his aim, but that doesn't matter.

It's not that I care what side a given person supports, but let's be honest about what side we believe and represent, shall we?

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2014, 05:13:16 PM »

As a SV, I do not see PV encouraging SVism per se. I see him making a judgment on which position makes the most sense/is more consistent between R&R and SV. I don't see him saying a person should be SV because obviously he is not.

I actually see him as a more of an unbiased observer considering most of us are either R&R or SV. I find it interesting to hear his take knowing he is not SV.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2014, 05:24:43 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

If Pete is an indult man, then he too is in the R&R camp, although in its milder form.

To say that the Indult is a more mild form of R&R would be to assume I am resisting: a) the post-conciliar papacies; and/or b) Vatican II, and/or c) the Novus Ordo.

I am not.

I accept each of the above as valid AND licit, although - obviously - I prefer the TLM personally, and support it. But this should not be interpreted as resistance to the Novus Ordo, and/or the post-conciliar papacies, and/or Vatican II.

In fact, I have come to appreciate and view Vatican II quite differently after studying the history and Tradition of our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. For those interested in understanding the Second Vatican Council through the eyes of Eastern Catholic Tradition, I would highly recommend the following book:

https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction

Pete Vere · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2014, 05:41:17 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.

Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?

Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.

This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.

But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.

So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.

Cantarella · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2014, 06:03:59 PM »

Dedicate advocates of Modernism exercise complete power over the channels of Catholic information and communications. After actually reading the Vatican 2 docuмents, one finds that there is nothing positively contradictory to Church dogma, only ambiguous statements that were manipulated by the enemies of the Church and those with an agenda. The problem is not in the text, per say, but resides more in its actual implementation. The crisis is not of doctrine, but of practice.

Religious Liberty and denial of EENS have been evils of Modernism (synthesis of all heresies) happening way before Vatican 2, as stated and confirmed by several pontiffs, including Pope Pius XII and Pius X.

Quote from: Pete Vere

But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.