Cassman / Dimond, First Hour

The debate is actually two hours long. I am a little less than halfway through.

Sedevacantism Debate: Are John XXIII Through Francis True Popes? Jeff Cassman Vs Br. Peter Dimond
20th of Sept. 2022 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIauJB2_y1c

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To or Against Cassman

10:02 "the Church has thought" - "the consensus is"
1 = sounds like an official decision
2 = sounds there actually isn't one, at best an impression of the ordinary magisterium

YP Poe

It is not a matter of consensus; the Church is not a Democracy. It is a matter of faith, docility, and obedience. "Consensus-based science" would be a less absurd proposition.

If the Learning Church cannot infallibly hear, then, effectively to actually, the Teaching Church cannot teach, infallibly or otherwise.

If one cannot know, then one cannot learn.

Also, "infallibility" has become a #redHerring masking a monkey trap.

The question should not be "What is infallible?", i.e., what is binding under pain of #heresy, but "What is binding?" People tend to act and think as if they will not be just as damned if they "merely" disregard something that "only" binds the under pain of mortal sin.

Additionally, the very impulse of doing the minimum, the reflexive, immediate seeking of loopholes, is a function of concupiscence. Love binds. We should feel the shame of falling under pain of a hangnail.

There is another ubiquitous, false, tacit assumption set:

if it is not "infallible" (irreformable), it is debatable;
if it is debatable, it is possibly false;
if it is possibly false, it is untrustworthy;
if it is untrustworthy, it is fearsome;
if it is fearsome, it is evil;
if it is evil, we are to avoid it. "Conveniently", we seem to miraculously recall and understand this principle, at least in such instances.

That means not following it, and the "obligation" to act contrary to it. (See "conveniently," prev.)

If it is evil, it cannot be of Holy Mother Church.

If it is of Her, then we have an epidemic, systemic plague of heresy in praxis because we profess via in/action that Holy Mother Church is poisoning Her Children. This praxis necessarily also involves a complexus of other intricated, grave sins.

Lizard brain #Theology.

Yet another wicked thought habit is in play: papal power, prerogatives, and privileges not only are not immediate but are necessarily mediate, which is likewise #heresy in #praxis at the very least.

YP Poe

PS,

I realise I am probably only expanding on your "consensus" notion/"preaching to the choir," but regardless, you raise a good point, at least indeliberately and obliquely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YP Poe If you had seen what Cassman had said at the time signature 10:02 you would have seen that I was first of all quoting two of his phrases and then stating for each what they sound like in same terms, that is, I was saying he was probably contradicting himself. Unless he has a better explanation.

The fact is, when there is neither Pope or Cardinal, he stated as only option "clergy of Rome" chosing next pope, giving one of the introductions to this as "the Church has thought about this" (and perhaps also pronounced Herself) and the next "the consensus is" (meaning he has the impression that this is what all bishops - or even all canonists? - think and say, he has no definite document for it).

How about seeing from my indications (under a youtube, a time signature is an indication) what I am talking about, and not second guessing that, and then from that second guessing my dispositions about certain matters?

YP Poe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ,

Never mind.

Take care, sir.

Bye.

To or Against some cross-examination

40:34 Bro. Peter Dimond has cited Billouart, Petrus Vidal and a few more.

He has cited them in the wording "we have" - are they all not yet in the public domain, so it is impossible to actually produce the quotes linking to their sources in the contexts they have in these sources?

I mean, on one of them it seems pretty clear that Bro. Peter Dimond and Jeff Cassman interpret the same person differently.

Wouldn't it be fine for those hearing this if they were available?

40:57 Eric McKensey (spelling) on page 44 of his work, The Delict of Heresy, says ... here we get at least a reference to the author in question.

41:31 Canon 91? 81?

No, canon 21:97!

No, 2197!

Here it is:


Canon 2197[1]
(NA)
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 1747, 2191
A delict is:
1.° Public, if it is already known or is in such circumstances that it can be and must be prudently judged that it will easily become known;
2.° Notorious by notoriety of law, [if it is] after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an adjudicated thing, or after confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750;
3.° Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal opinion could excuse [the act];
4.° Occult, if it is not public; materially occult, if the delict is hidden; formally occult, if imputability [is not known].

IT comes under the heading of Delicts. Like this one:


Canon 2205[6]
(1983 CIC 1323–24)
§ 1. Physical force that prevents all faculty of action entirely excludes a delict.
§ 2. Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law.
§ 3. But if the act was intrinsically evil or verged on contempt for the faith or ecclesiastical authority or harm to souls, the causes that [were outlined] in § 2 indeed diminish imputability, but do not eliminate it.
§ 4. [Force] for the sake of legitimate protection against unjust aggression, if due moderation is observed, eliminates a delict completely; otherwise it only diminishes imputability according to the cause of the provocation.

To or Against some cross-examination

57:33 It may be noted that as Martin Luther was in fact a priest, he was in a sense successor of the Apostles, at least of the 72 Apostles.

There is a very big qui pro quo, a very big bait and switch, when laity shouting out against clergy in at least subjective support of the faith, and that one acknowledged by the other party as Catholic on other issues, is compared to a priest who as clergy made a shoutout against what people had been taking as the faith for centuries. He was shouting out very directly against Peter Lombard. I just checked that from Tetzel's replies.

Luther was excommunicated over many things, and rightly, but saying laymen can shout out against clergy wasn't one of them. What he actually meant was, however, laymen with power can remove clergy from their churches if they are too Catholic for his taste, and the laymen who did that at Danish and Swedish Reformations (Gustav Wasa, Frederik I) were incurring penalties for that removal.

Jeff Cassman is either making an uncanonic point, or misjudging past heresies over their actual condemned content. What a Lutheran means by Lutheranism and what a Catholic means by Lutheranism are not the same. They refer to the same Denomination, at its historic beginnings at least, but the Lutheran means all of the doctrine that Denomination had in Wittenberg and Augsburg, the Catholic means such parts of that doctrine which the Church condemned. He may have a pet peeve with Pentecostals saying laymen can prophecy, which the Church has not (there is another question whether Pentecostal ones can), but he cannot deduce from this and from a quote from Martin Luther, that the idea of a layman speaking up against clergy is what Pope Leo X or the Council of Trent condemned in Luther.

When a layman gets around past councils, the operative thing that makes this false is not the layman considering himself to have understanding, but the contradiction between his understanding and legitimate, undisputed, councils of the Church.

Historically, the ones most allergic to laymen preaching without at least some approval from bishops and some exam in theology have been caesareopapist Protestant communities like Lutherans or Anglicans. January 12th 1726, there was a crackdown on Pietism in Lutheran Sweden. Prayer meetings outside Church buildings, notably in homes, apart from the family praying together, were forbidden. The penalties were heavy monetary ones for the one arranging such a thing (probably a layman also preaching) and if he did it again the third time, instead of fines it was two years of exile from Sweden - with Finland. Poor people could be going 2 weeks, first time, 3 weeks second time, to a prison on bread and water. Participants were similarily fined. I think the history of Methodism shows they had similar trouble in Anglican England.

So, you have no authority is not the issue.

To or Against some cross-examination

59:05 "does not extend to a dubious pope in time of a schism"

Who was Pope on the midnight usshering in August 2nd this year? Pope Francis, as some call him? Or Pope Michael, as I call him and who died that day.

According to St. Alfonsus, Pope Michael just became an asset and perhaps an indispensable one for Sedevacantism!

To or Against some cross-examination

1:00:28 1) Occult heretics are not what we are discussing, at all, if St. Robert meant "materially occult" as per canon 2197.
The material fact of real or supposed heresy is very clearly "public" or "notorious as to notoriety of fact."

So, Jeff Cassman can only appeal to St. Robert by assuming we deal with "formally occult" as to hidden whether the fact is imputable. In the case of bishops and popes (or presumed such) any act on the faith that was not just said off the cuff in an interview, or even one that is repeated over more than one interview is also imputable. The SSPX would not be right in pretending this could extend to hidden imputability. But that would be their only way of bringing "occult heretics" into play.

2) Let's presume that they try to bring "occult heresy" into play anyway. At some point, they could reason, Jorge Mario appeared to be a perfectly normal Catholic. Then he became heretic in foro interno after becoming so in foro externo. Sorry, on their view before becoming so in foro externo. Therefore, what St. Robert says would mean that they (Jorge Mario and similar high placed clergy in the Vatican II sect, similarily heretical) only would become public heretics if fulfilling either the criterium of becoming judged as heretics or the criterium of getting out of communion with the Church. But the salient point is, here a Sede could reply that St. Robert also (whatever later canon law might say on the matter) here meant separating oneself from the Church as per new doctrine contradicting earlier, clearly Church taught, doctrine. Not just writing a letter to the bishop and saying "I am no longer Catholic" and not just stating in St. Peter's Square "I am no longer a Catholic Pope, I am a Buddhist." But before replying that, one could ask if certain people did not become public heretics in foro externo before doing so in foro interno. 1) They repeated heresy, so far material heresy, when it was fashionable; 2) made it formal heresy when refusing to step back from it when discreet reality checks nudged them to. So, if they became heretics in the external forum before being so in the internal, one cannot any more use that quote to circumscribe "public heresy" or "apostasy" to actually joining a heresy like Lutheranism or an Apostasy like a Masonic Lodge or a declaration of adhering to Second Humanist manifesto.

To or Against some cross-examination

1:02:23 Was Savonarola a heretic? Cardinal Billot opined he was. But cardinal Billot is not the supreme magisterium, he is just a commenter on it.

Now, what Billot seems to leave out when speaking of those "defending his schism" is that one of those defenders is St. Philip Neri.

I have also seen a historic fact or presumed by the writer fact some place that the joining of the last prayer "Holy Mary, Mother of God" to the "Hail Mary" was initiated by precisely Savonarola. The end of Hail Mary in St. Thomas' time was "and Blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus. Amen."

The second way of praying the rosary presumes basically as if the name Jesus was the last word in a regular Hail Mary, because the mysteries are added in relative clauses "Whom Thou" for the joyful ones and "Who" for the sorrowful and glorious ones after this name.

So, the fact is, the Hail Mary was extended late, and it could have been by Savonarola.

But, he was at least convicted of heresy? Yes and - significantly - no. It seems there was in fact no heretical doctrine mentioned in the condemnation. He was condemned for being "heretic and malefactor" - confer the first process against St. Joan were the false charge of heresy was at least kind of backed in the sentence by 1) "crossdressing" and by 2) "hearing voices from God" (without formal approval from the there present clergy that they were from God). Both are insufficient for a serious condemnation for heresy, unless there is much more clarity of a will to imitate the clothing of the opposite sex as a coquetterie (which was certainly not St. Joan's intention, when trying to avoid rape), or the voices saying things much more clearly against the faith than "the King of England is not the King of France" or - should such a prophet exist, I do not claim that for me - "Jorge Mario is not Pope of the Catholic Church." But the judges acting according to orders by Pope Alexander VI did not even have that, as far as I have been able to read up on it.