Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate

Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate · Who Erased My Comment? · What About the SSPX?

When I started seeing the video, it was one with Cassman starting a debate when it was viewed directly. That was after midnight Paris time, and probably after First Vespers of St Matthew where it was held.

When I see the video again, that is not how it starts, but the channel owner is serving that debate in bits and pieces after very careful introduction and with comments.

I need to take back above, I saw below video and had forgot that the debate between Cassman and Dimond a) was on another channel + b) I had not seen it still is on another channel. Sorry, Michael! Added after below signature.

REVIEW: Sedevacantism Debate (Cassman vs. Dimond)
St. Matthew's Feast 2022 | Reason & Theology

1:46 Actually, Pope Michael agreed with you.

Dimond = right on J-XXIII to F
Dimond = wrong on the status of the Holy See

SSPX = right on the theologemes of J-XXIII to F
SSPX = wrong on the nature of jurisdiction in the Catholic Church

Against both : there will probably be a Pope when Christ returns, he will not be even as a private person, without dogmatising, guilty of certain theologemes that are not Catholic theology.

So, Exsurge Domine prop 33 or Dignitatis Humanae?

5:10 For your view on JP-II, B-XVI and F supporting old age in a way that by now implies human evolution (Adam having bodily ancestors), were on the playlists do I go? [were = where, sry]

Obviously, for me this is a guarantee these three are / were not Popes, since not Catholic.

10:10 As an X-SSPX-er, a momentary rejection of what a Pope is saying right now, as being heresy could work insofar as a Pope may have spoken hastily.

You may know that RC by now I think dogma (Lateran V?) and EO men like Mark of Ephesus (third "defender of Orthodoxy") disagree on what is happening to the saints now. Are they fully enjoying the Beatific Vision (RC position)? Or are they in a Soul Sleep up to Judgement Day (MoE's position)?

John XXII for a while taught the soul sleep position, which makes it somewhat egregious when an EO uses the "heresy of John XXII" as a reason against papacy.

Now, one or two saints (the one or one of them named Pascalis) rejected this position very publically. He said "if you don't revoke that, I will withdraw my obedience."

There is no doubt that at that point in time this saint was still accepting John XXII, and definitely no longer simply obeying him. He was at that pretty short point in time doing what the SSPX have been doing (most dioceses) since priests of Écône got suspensi a divinis in the early 70's up to the present day, 50 years later, within the "fourth papacy" from when the situation began.

The one salient point is, what did the saint mean by "withdraw obedience"?

If he meant "I will feel justified in not actually disobeying, but not-obeying the actual Pope until we get a good one who is not teaching this heresy" - SSPX is OK.
If he meant "I will no longer recognise John XXII as Pope, but I will also not try to get someone else elected" - Bro Dimond is OK.
If he meant "I will no longer recognise John XXII as Pope, so I will incite cardinals or whatever to get someone else elected" - there is a case for David Allen Bawden being OK in 1990.

Pope Michael (who got elected in 1990, same person as David Allen) died in this year on the 2nd of August.

11:31 Do you know of a recently deceased Fr. Cekada?

He was a former Seminarian in Écône, and he basically said in a very good video entitled "Lefebvre the Sedevacantist" or synonymous, that Mgr. was not consistent. He was arguing sedevacancy one day and next day saying one could for such and such a canonical or practical reason not proclaim one. The video is basically a collection of the sede things Mgr. was saying, but ends on the note, he was inconsistent.

On Jan 2 2005, I left the hospitality of the SSPX parish St. Peter of Breitenbachplatz, Berlin. I had been asked to distribute a tract containing "auch heute ist Petrus in Banden, in Banden der Häresie und des Irrtums die er sich zum Teil selbst geschmiedet hat" - even today Peter is in chains, in chains of heresy and error, which, partly, he has forged himself.

To which I replied "then he is not Peter" - and as I did not physically help Rev. Bruno Scheible SSPX to distribute that tract I got out. But in the context, he did say "Father Schmidberger" (from whom the quote was) "is basically Sedevacantist" ...

This snapshots a kind of disunity, on the one hand very nearly Sede people like Schmidberger or Mgr. Williamson. On the other hand very non-Sede people, "let's make up with Rome as soon as possible" and "let's given in where this is theologically at least possible" - like Mgr. Fellay (at least he has this reputation).

Since the occasion when Mgr. Williamson got into mediatic and legal trouble for candidly on direct question stating his disbelief in gas chambers, he was excluded by Mgr. Fellay, and now has a "parallel SSPX" of which I am not sure of the name.

12:47 "except in the case of heresy"
"... a nemine judicatur nisi a fide devia deprehendatur"

Pope Innocent III.

Confer, I think it was St. Leo IX, who said the decisions of it are irreformable "nisi quid subreptum sit" (if not, though I think it was, it was one in the 11th C at least).

13:01 It doesn't say "unless a Pope is guilty of heresy" but "unless it" (the see) "is caught redhanded in deviation from the faith" in the quote from Pope Innocent III.
Deprehendi doesn't mean being guilty, but being caught redhanded.

14:33 Would you mind from what you deduce that narrow interpretation on the canon from 869?

15:03 I mean, there is of course an example to which you refer, Pope St. Leo II ratifying a judgement on Honorius (I?) insofar as it states him guilty of fomenting heresy by refusing to condemn it.

But that precedent, though it certainly played in in 869, was perhaps not directly cited? You know those canons better than I. And you should know the difference between their exact text and your other rationales for narrowing it in a certain way.

There are also other things that can be deduced from the affair. Honorius was a bad watchdog, not barking enough, but he was not directly promoting by stating as his own belief the heresy of Monotheletism. Had he done that, would Pope Leo II still have been able to consider him a past Pope?

Wait, it's available on PapalEncyclicals.

// We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome. //

Well, the one way out for anyone criticising any of these guys on a more than just personal level, is the charge of papacy lost or never acquired, due to heresy.

However, it does not state that a holy synod is the one and sole conscience that can state "such and such is a heretic" about a presumed Pope.

Obviously, there is a thing called the Synod of Sutri after this.

17:10 While Dimond Brothers, as well as Sedes connected to the Right Wing paper Rivarol (which is not per se a Sede publication, but the Catholics in it are Sede, like those in Présent are SSPX or SSP) have stated that the end times are a probable prospect, next Pope being Jesus come back and not one of His vicars, the authors they cite from Vatican I theologians are more prone to talk of 40 years sedevacancy as a possibity, and they have mentioned 70 years on the parallel of Babylonian captivity.

1958 (if they think Pius XII kept papacy up to his death) + 70 = 2028.
1958 + 40 = 1998.

Election of Pope Michael was however before 1998, it was in 1990.

18:07 If you are foreseeing no miraculous change, why are you participating in what is not a Catholic type of gatekeeping (republishing statements of me condemning evolutionism and attaching an anathema or a warning against it) but a Jewish type of gatekeeping, consisting in a conspiracy of silence around me and the tactic of the burnt ground (apart from my physical survival)? And you are very far from being the only one.

19:15 At this point, I saw a delicious comment by The Byzantine Scotist:
"If it were true that the Popes are fake Popes, it would seem that someone like Pope Michael would have been the true Pope because he at least tried to continue the succession."

19:28 Dimond Brothers have referred to the Vatican as that Temple of God (II Thess) and to JP-II as that man of lawlessness, due to "in a sense united himself to every man" implying he's somehow enjoying a kind of hypostatic union (whether he is in the state of grace or not).

It can be added, this seems to have been said already by P-VI, a man who changed times and laws. Who took saints out of the martyrology readings.

19:40 It is not improbable that either "PF" or "PEB-XVI" is the False Prophet, but the man of lawlessness seems to have already died.

When Pope Michael said "the Antichrist has already come and gone again" he referred to "Paul VI"

19:48 No. Precisely not.

As a former Protestant, but one who never bought into that ideology, I know it.

The people like Calvin and Newton are not claiming that this specific Pope is the individual either Man of Lawlessness or Beast or False Prophet. They are not into an all that literal reading of the Apocalypse. If "Millenarianism" doesn't refer to (as it properly should) stating there will be a thousand years between certain just and all impious rising with less glorious just, and those risen first will enjoy a bodily reign, but simply an imminent expectation of the End Times, then those Protestants are not such.

They have taken (and it's official dogma within 7 Day Adventism) the 1260 days of Antichrist, not as 1260 times 24 hours, like the Apocalypse says, but as 1260 times anything between 360 and 365.25 times 24 hours. Sabbatarians have pretended to trace the beginning of those 1260 years to a council of Orange or Orléans (forget which) enforcing Sunday repose and the end of them to the captivity of Pius VI by a French Revolutionary general acting on behalf of Napoleon.

That ideology is therefore very far from being a twin to this type of claim from Dimond Brothers.

On the contrary, you can see Catholic Bibles from the Middle Ages, adorned in Apocalypse section, with an image of a bride, from which a beast head has been decapitated and on which Christ replaces a head like His own. In other words, the Church being in the end times for a certain time misdirected by the Beast - collectively, not without remnant, otherwise the promise would be broken - is part of a Catholic view on Biblical prophecy. Check with a Medievalist.

You could perhaps state that Catholic doctrine bans date setting. This is a "biggie" with Ratzinger, since he was "Cardinal" - but the fact is, the enjoinment in Apocalypse 13:18 is not empty, there must be persons for which the order to count the number of a name is not forbidden, but a duty. And the doctrine you refer to is from Lateran V, where it is a purely canonic one, it should not be treated as definite dogma.

And the non-authorisation spoken of by Leo X could have gone to its end in the First World War, because the Roman Emperor was taken out of the way then, both in Austria and in Russia. Confer II Thess. If Emperor Francis Joseph had not been griefstruck after a second of his sons was killed, a first having killed himself, if he had not been indignated over Serbia being ungrateful for the support given them against Bulgaria in one of the Balkan wars, if he had not seen himself as a kind of superior liberator from the Turks and Serbia just as a byproduct, in other words, if he had not acted like Bush Jr after Sept 11 against Afghanistan, but against a Christian country, a Christian sovereign, or if the Czar had offered to mediate in a way which would have left some better chances of hanging Gavril Princip than Serbia offered, we might still be in a state where "the one holding back" were still holding back and date setting were still forbidden. According to Lateran V.

20:22 As said, no, mainstream Protestants do not and Jesuits of the time did, enforce a literal reading of the Apocalypse as about a specific short period called the end times (except the chapters that are about all of the NT period).

You are misrepresenting Protestantism to accuse Dimond of it.

Plus, even if it had been the case, you do not find that view condemned in Trent. We cannot say "Protestantism is wrong, therefore all the things that Protestants say are wrong, therefore this man agreeing with a Protestant statement (a statement stated by Protestants and viewed by them as Protestant) is also wrong because he is a Protestant." What Protestants say is wrong whenever it is condemned by Trent (or Unigenitus or Exsurge Domine ...) and not simply each time it is approved by a lot of Protestants.

20:28 we do not state the Protestants were wrong for going that route, because I don't agree that is what the Protestants actually did.

Baronius even didn't.

He was saying "the Magdeburg Centuries are wrong in stating that the papacy" - over time, a very prolonged time - "represents Antichrist" ... so he was not attributing a short term, one generation, End Times vision to the Reformation. Pour cause, he was dealing with a non-literal and highly prolonged view of that prophecy.

"L'opera fu pubblicata la prima volta tra il 1588 e il 1607 come una risposta alla Historia Ecclesiae Christi (Storia della Chiesa di Cristo) luterana, in cui i teologi di Magdeburgo esaminavano la storia della chiesa al fine di dimostrare come la Chiesa cattolica rappresentasse l'Anticristo ed avesse deviato dalle credenze e dalle pratiche della chiesa primitiva."

In other words, he knew, as you do not know, the Classic Protestant charge of Papacy as Antichrist is really about Papacy not about one or two popes, not about a seven Pope series hinting at it (it would start from 1929, when Mussolini gave and Pius XI accepted a new entity in international diplomacy called the Vatican State).

Calvin considered Gregory the Great as great, but considered his first or second successor was "the first Pope to be Antichrist" meaning Calvinism classically states that there has been THE Antichrist continuously on Earth since early 7th C. A very different proposal from that of the Dimond Brothers!

20:45 If you challenge that view, are you supporting the view that a Temple of OT cultus will be rebuilt in Jerusalem?

Bc, that is against statements, I think dogmatic ones, that the OT cultus was voided of not just salvific content by being a proxy for Christian confession, but also even of lawfulness.

Here is the Haydock comment on that part of the verse:

And the man of sin[7] revealed, the son of perdition, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. He is called again, (v. 8.) that wicked one . . . whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. By all these words is described to us the great antichrist, about the end of the world, according to the unexceptionable authority and consent of the ancient fathers. It is as ridiculous as malicious to pretend, with divers later reformers, that the pope, and all the popes since the destruction of the Roman empire, are the great antichrist, the man of sin, &c. Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and divers learned Protestants, have confuted and ridiculed this groundless fable, of which more on the Apocalypse. It may suffice to observe here that antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the wicked one, according to all the ancients, is to be one particular man, not so many different men. That he is to come a little while before the day of judgment. That he will make himself be adored, and pretend to be God. What pope did so? That he will pretend to be Christ, &c. Wi. — S. Aug. (de Civ. Dei. b. xx. c. 19.) says, that an attack would be made at one and the same time against the Roman empire and the Church. The Roman empire subsists as yet, in Germany, though much weakened and reduced. The Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding all its losses, and the apostacy of many of its children, has always remained the same. Calmet. — The two special signs of the last day will be a general revolt, and the manifestation of antichrist, both of which are so dependent on each other, that S. Austin makes but one of both. What presumptive folly in Calvin and other modern reformers, to oppose the universal sentiments of the fathers both of the Latin and Greek Church! What inconsistency, to give such forced interpretations, not only widely different from the expositions of sound antiquity, but also widely different from each other! The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circumlatrantibus hæreticis. Aug. de util. cred. c. xvii. — In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian Church, which he will pervert to his own worship; as Mahomet has done with the churches of the east. Ch.

Here I stop.

Was the "Pachamama statue" (nearly universally known as such) an Our Lady statue, even if "Pope Francis" had brought up Pachamama? Reason & Theology supports the former.

I think the "Demiurg with an omnipotent magic wand" speech in 2014 was sufficient even without Pachamama, and there it is a thing he has explained again and again, he does not believe Adam was created directly from God as to the body. Despite Pius XII making a kind of moratorium or sham moratorium on the issue in 1950, I don't think this can stand as acceptable from a Catholic believer.
/Hans Georg, signing out from that lengthy video.

No comments: