Trent Horn's Comment, Up to 12:45

His comment on what? On the Dimond / Cassman debate.

Peter Dimond’s Sedevacantism (REBUTTED)
3rd of Oct. 2022 | The Counsel of Trent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDAd7Q1mZYg

0:32 An interregnum started on Aug. 2nd this year. Pope Michael died.

Florida Man

He wasn't even a priest when he was "elected."

You're trying to discredit the sede position with that Pope Michael nonsense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Florida Man Even if you were not to trust the wikipedia about the Popes who were ordained and consecrated after election (though you had better have better sources, rather than just saying wikipedia's no good), there is the fact that "pope" means "bishop of Rome" and "bishop of" works in such a way that one can be elected and (according to Dominicans at least) already obtain the jurisdiction before one is consecrated bishop. A very famous example I do not have from wikipedia was St. Ambrose as bishop of Milan. He was a catechumen when elected, and in his case it doesn't mean he continued to study after baptism, he was baptised and confirmed the same day as he was consecrated.

Far from trying to discredit Sedevacantism, I was opting for something close enough in rejecting Antipopes guilty of Evolutionism, while not falling afoul of "perpetuos successores" - the authorities that Dimond brothers cite from the Council fathers in 1869-70 only allow 40 years explicitly, not 70.

Sir Klopp

Pope Michael reverted to the Catholic Church on his death bed, praise God.

Florida Man

@Hans-Georg Lundahl wow I didn't know they did that. I guess it makes sense. I stand corrected.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl which Pope was the earliest evolutionist in your reckoning?

Florida Man

@Sir Klopp I've heard of that claim, but I doubt it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sir Klopp I saw the burial Mass by Father Francis Dominic who had given Pope Michael the last rites.

He claimed he was too incoherent to make either choice really voluntarily. There was another priest, Novus Ordo, who had previously been with him.

The last month, there was a blood vessel burst in the head.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Florida Man The earliest who made a compromise not condemning Evolution was Pius XII. An allocution of 1941, an answer to the Paris archdiocese in 1947 (which was mistaken for him actually opting to the Evolution side), and Humani Generis, correcting the mistake, but showing him undecided and basically presenting the Church as such.

He introduced on the Vatican level the idea that it was licit to say or at least defend in learned debate that Adam had non-human biological ancestry.

The earliest to stand out for actually stating that or closely similar as something he believed was "John Paul II" in that 1992 speech.

0:48 Conclavism, "Bawdenite version" says : the interregnum may have lasted for c. 3 decades (1958 - 1990) or (at least some times Pope Michael envisaged this) it may have been two shorter ones, first ending with Siri election, second lasting 1989 to 1990. Siri famously not coming out as elected pope to the general public. See the news story "white smoke, black smoke, white smoke."

1:22 "but that every bishop ordained after Vatican II was never validly ordained"

• 1) not after Vatican II, but after the liturgic reform at least for Latin rite;
• 2) not every bishop, since for instance Thuc, Lefèbvre, and vagante bishop Bob Biarnesen consecrating Pope Michael in 2011 used valid rites when consecrating several bishops for the first two or a layman elected Pope for the last one, so there are bishops with valid rites.

The last one is contested by Sedevacantists like the Introibo blogger, who has attacked the validity of Bishop Biarnesen's line.

BMan525

Antipope Michael has passed away though, so his line isn’t relevant.

Manuela Glavas

Wait...
So you're telling me the pope, with his divine protection against grave error, could have botched up the ordination of bishops for about 60years.
But archbishop Lefebre, without said divine protection, did it right?

Does not sound very catholic to me, my friend

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BMan525 Bob Biarnesen would still be in communion with his heritage, so the line remains relevant.

Fr. Francis Dominic and a few more are already ordained within it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Manuela Glavas I have not stated that I consider Montini as having been "Paul VI" or having enjoyed divine protection.

That's where Lefebvre was inconsistent.

Dimond brothers as well as Pope Michael and a few more in between, are not sharing that inconsistency, which doesn't sound very Catholic to me either.

Did we meet, since you called me "my friend"? Happy to make your acquaintance, otherwise!

Yajun Yuan

@Manuela Glavas How do you know archbishop Lefebre doesn't have divine protection? Did the Holy Spirit tell you that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yajun Yuan It is about the protection extended to all of the Church, and an individual bishop does not automatically have that when disagreeing with other bishops, in fact he doesn't if they are the Catholic ones.

1:39 As you can see, the Dimond Brothers did not accept Pope Michael who was by then already ordained priest and consecrated bishop and celebrating Mass.

One issue would be, the Dimond Brothers are Feeneyites. Pope Michael wasn't, or at least had not been so in the past.

Pope Michael held, as I do, a Protestant can sincerely love Christ, be in a state of grace, and will then be led by God to become a Catholic. Note, his words on his site do not specify if he means "always" (which might be acceptable to Dimond Brothers) or "mostly" (which I would personally prefer).

Yajun Yuan

Timestamp 2:07 How can that send well meaning Catholics to hell? unless you want to say all Protestants are going to hell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yajun Yuan Protestants who do not convert before they die would normally be going to Hell.

Exceptions? Perhaps, according to Pope Michael not very likely not impossible, according to Dimond Brothers impossible even.

I'll have a look at the time stamp, but it's not my video, it's not me speaking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yajun Yuan Trent Horn in the sentence starting just after time stamp is probably saying:

• 1) there are cases when only confession can save, because the one not confessing is also not making an act of perfect contrition and sticking to it, which is true;
• 2) he may also consider those abstaining from sacraments by an error about their licitness to be damning themselves. Obviously, when someone's sacraments are definitely really not licit, it is a duty to abstain from them (at least if they are also not valid, not just lack of jurisdiction).

2:11 "so, according to them, you can never receive the Eucharist"

If their problem was with heretical sermons, it would seem the problem is solved (for priests with valid ordination) if one received the Eucharist on the deathbed, when the priest is not holding a sermon. Dimond Brothers very much did not specify that all priests in the US are currently invalidly ordained, and there are Sedevacantist clergy. Only, they are for doctrinal (not validity-of-ordination) reasons disapproved by them.

For instance, the late Fr. Cekada, one intellectual among Sedevacantists who recently died, was arguably their equal, if not in assiduity and acribeia, at least in intellectual outlook, and they disapproved of him, because he was not a Feeneyist.

[1 answer is not accessible]

4:07 I am probably neither first nor last to come to some kind of Sedevacantism from SSPX.

Monseigneur Lefebvre was inconsistent, when on one occasion he would make totally sedevacantist assessments of the Conciliar Church and on other occasions would say "we do not have the right to judge them" ...

Gregorio Tauro

Hello, +Lefebvre wasn't inconsistent here's why.

There are things that us as laymen can judge for ourselves thusly leading us to persevere in the Catholic faith rather than the V2 Church.

The validity of a papacy however should only be a careful judgement made by bishops in collegiality, not for anyone of us alone to make, even for a single archbishop to make.

This is why +Lefebvre and the society do not endorse and discourage a sedevacantist position.

It's a scourge that faithful people are completely bereft of guidance and we live in a time that forces us into very difficult decisions.

Yajun Yuan

@Gregorio Tauro "The validity of a papacy however should only be a careful judgement made by bishops in collegiality, not for anyone of us alone to make, even for a single archbishop to make." Where does it say this? is this just your private opinion?

Gregorio Tauro

@Yajun Yuan hi, no it's not my personal opinion though i agree with it.

Trent actually covers this when presenting the proposal of Bellarmine, and the other's name escapes me.

A Trifle

@Gregorio Tauro "By their fruits you will know them". In ordaining bishops without authorization, Lefebvre created the equivalent of an Orthodox Latin Rite. Those 4 bishops have already spilt from each other. His fruits are disobedience and disunity. "Saving" the Latin Mass was not worth it, no matter how many paragraphs people fill about it.

altalingua

@A Trifle I politely disagree. Saving the Tridentine Mass justified an act of disobedience. SSPX does not deny the authority of the pope. The fruits are actually vibrant and growing communities, with hundreds of priests and full seminaries.

Gregorio Tauro

@altalingua and to add to your reply, it is not just the Mass that the Sspx keeps, but also the attitude towards religion and worship that was discarded in recent decades. It's why our communities are flourishing and why young people flock to them.

4:39 I looked up Jeremias 33:17.

[17] For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. [18] Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face to offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually:

Challoner comments:

[17] "There shall not be cut off from David": This was verified in Christ, who is of the house of David; and whose kingdom in his church shall have no end.

[18] "Neither shall there be cut off from the priests": This promise relates to the Christian priesthood; which shall also continue for ever: the functions of which (more especially the great sacrifice of the altar) are here expressed by the name of holocausts, and other offerings of the law, which were so many figures of the Christian sacrifice.

Later on we have:

[24] Hast thou not seen what this people hath spoken, saying: The two families which the Lord had chosen, are cast off: and they have despised my people, so that it is no more a nation before them?

[24] "Two families": Viz., the families of the kings and priests.

It would seem this is a thing about physical heredity where the succession must be immediate. A son cannot be born more than 9 months after the father died (well, not without frozen embryos, and that's not natural). It does not say that these would be always fulfilling their functions.

Now, when I go to LXX, Ellopos bilingual, I find instead:

17 And there rose up men of the elders of the land, and said to all the assembly of the people, 18 Michaea the Morathite lived in the days of Ezekias king of Juda, and said to all the people of Juda, Thus saith the Lord; Sion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become a desolation, and the mountain of the house shall be a thicket of trees.

Ah, wait, this is "Masoretic 26" ... so 7 chapters on LXX 40, should be this one.

And when it comes to LXX 40, the chapter seems to end in verse 13.

Ah, yes. Verses 33:14-26 are marked as n/a.

6:08 "teaches that there will never be a time when there are no successors of St. Peter"

If you refer to "perpetuos successores" of the Vatican Council, commenters from that council have stated a vacancy could last for forty years.

If Siri was never Pope, and if Pius XII remained Pope up to his death, Pope Michael has that covered by being elected 32 years after the death of last pope.

If Siri was never Pope and if Pius XII lost papacy over first becoming 1950 material pope by refusing to condemn the position Adam had physical ancestry and then 1951 not pope at all, by stating his belief in 5 billion years, that makes the election of Pope Michael pretty much match that limit.

Zenex

"Stop supporting an antipope lol" is about all I got, I know it's not constructive but there isn't really much to say... I don't quite follow the argument or the premises you're putting forth...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zenex The argument made was not directly for a close to Sedevacantist Papal Claimant. It was answering an objection against him, which Trent Horn was making by stating the interregnum would have been too long.

The arguments for the see being vacant in early 1990, before the election of Pope Michael include the visit to the synagogue and the prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986.

6:39 Etsi Multa is speaking of heretics who for instance say that the secular power of the Church is an error.

In other words, it is not accusing anyone of heresy or schism for simply calling out a recent change in what is heard from chairs or what purports to be such.

Pope Michael was not denying, but affirming indefectibility of the Church.

6:53 In fact, if I look up Jeremiah 33, it is not given as a conditional promise, but as a promise starting from a future date.

14] Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform the good word that I have spoken to the house of Israel, and to the house of Juda. [15] In those days, and at that time, I will make the bud of justice to spring forth unto David, and he shall do judgment and justice in the earth.

[16] In those days shall Juda be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely: and this is the name that they shall call him, The Lord our just one. [17] For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel. [18] Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face to offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually

Jeremiah is describing the Catholic Church in terms of the Old Testament, and the starting point of the promise is when Christ came, when God was incarnate.

Jeremiah was not saying "from times past and now on, the throne of David shall not be empty" but "from a future date, the throne of David shall not be empty"

Lefebvre cited an earlier learned man (dead before the recent quarrel) as saying that the minimal requirement of the Church not having failed is, it contains one bishop.

According to Pope Michael, from 1990 to 2011, it contained one bishop elect with valid jurisdiction, but there were bishops with due and valid consecration who once reconciled with this pope would be able to bring orders and sacraments back to the Church.

Michael Dulman

That's a good nuance! Maybe it's a mix of conditional and unconditional. Verse 18's specific reference to Levites seems to make it so it has to be conditional, but it doesn't seem necessarily that the other prophetic verses in that excerpt are conditional. Good eye!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Dulman As said, the starting point of this indefectibility is AD 33.

The two sacrifices Levites usually did and also mentioned here, are the two that most typologically prophecy the acts of Christ on Calvary and in the Eucharist.

And as the Blessed Virgin was first cousin of St. Elisabeth Cohen, Our Lord was also a Levite, not just a Davidic King.

7:28 The verse 18 describes the New Testament in Old Testament terms.

Burnt offerings? All monastic perpetual vows are such, as well as all martyrdoms.
Cereal offerings? Refers to the Eucharist. To the Eucharist being a real sacrifice. It is the same word as used in Malachi 1:11, which is one of the proof texts against Protestants and their denial of the Mass being a sacrifice.

So, you got Jeremiah wrong.

To be fair, so did the Dimonds, by pretending the perpetuity had already started, when in fact it started in AD 33.

8:15 The commenters from that council include people saying that "perpetual" does not include condemning a 40 years' vacancy.

The Dimond brothers significantly found none saying "70 years" since they cited none when giving the Babylonian captivity as an example of that time span.

Again, in favour of Pope Michael.

9:34 And Dimond Brothers, Lefebvre, Pope Michael, consider and considered this pseudo-messianism to be fulfilled in certain aspects of Vatican II.

Cult of UNO. Cult of rights of man (including in cases like France to the detriment of laws recognised as the rights of God). "work of human hands" in the new offertory.

9:40 "Dimond has presented no evidence"

In fact, between Dimond and Cassman, that kind of presumption about the present period is common to both sides.

Therefore, no need to debate it, no need for Dimond to state it in that particular debate.

10:10 Dimond Brothers made a video in which the fulfilment is "united Himself to every man" / "every human being" in Redemptor Hominum § 13.

Interpreted, perhaps wrongly, as meaning every man has a share in the hypostatic union, every man (including the Pope) is God by being a man.

Again, probable that Cassman, fairly certain some in the SSPX, share this indictment against JP-II.

10:47 "there is no single temple of God where all Christians worship"

Dimond brothers have noted that the St. Peter's Cathedral is the main temple of Catholic worship.

[At the following, Trent Horn said Christ returning would not find an absent Church with all successors of the apostles gone.]

11:17 We totally agree - both Dimond brothers and adherents of the late Pope Michael.

The latter actually said Christ returning probably will find an individual successor to St. Peter as Pope too.

But even the Dimond brothers have not said that there are no Catholic bishops, they are just in a quarrel with all the Sedevacantist bishops available in the US. As, obviously rejecting valid jurisdiction for non-Sede ones.

11:29 Indeed, for the Holy Spirit to be with the Apostles "to the age" there have to be Apostles, i e successors to such, up to Armageddon and Doomsday.

No disagreement here.

I usually prove the same point with Matthew 28:16-20. Christ promised "all days, even until the consummation of the world" and from verse 16 we know He was speaking specifically to the eleven.

12:28 Paul of Samosata did not promote heresy decade after decade without reaction.

He was elected in 260 and deposed in 269.

The man you are accepting as Pope has had no qualms about being in communion with German bishops or with "Fr" Martin. Both of which promote errors condoning in some cases sodomy and sodomitic long term relations. I think "Fr" Martin ... no, it was Perez who replaced Chaput, and this by promotion from your Pope.

Mark Segal, from Philadelphia Gay News : "One last point that highlights the difference between Perez and Chaput. While Chaput supported his own type of conversion therapy, a practice banned in 19 states, Perez and the Cleveland . . . diocese has an LGBT family ministry outreach. It’s easy to see who is better for our community and for the Catholic Church."

Cited on New Ways Ministry, LGBTQ Advocates Welcome Philadelphia’s New Archbishop as “Breath of Fresh Air”
February 6, 2020, by Robert Shine, Managing Editor
https://www.newwaysministry.org/2020/02/06/lgbtq-advocates-welcome-philadelphias-new-archbishop-as-breath-of-fresh-air/

The "own type of conversion therapy" attributed to Chaput seems to have been to tell homosexual people, quite correctly, they could make heterosexual marriages and so didn't need to be celibate just because they were homosexuals.

12:33 The Arian heresy was indeed at first led by the priest Arius and many bishops supported it.

B U T "The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius sparked the controversy that bears his name when Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."[13] This quote describes the essence of Arius's doctrine."

So, the priest came out as adherent of the heresy named after him in the year when St. Alexander was made bishop. Namely in 313. This is just 12 years before Arius was condemned. By a Council that then excommunicated the bishops who continued to support Arianism, namely that of Nicaea.

Now, there is an interesting thing about St. Alexander's predecessor:

"Alexander became patriarch on the passing of Achillas of Alexandria, whose own remarkably short reign was thought by some to have been brought about by his breaking the command of his own predecessor, Peter of Alexandria, to never readmit Arius into communion."

This means, Arius had already been condemned once before, on the local level, by St. Peter I of Alexandria. He died in 311.

Again, a heretical clergymen is struck very much more swiftly than in "post-Vatican-II" times.

More on St. Peter I:

"Accounts of Peter's position during the persecution vary,[4] but one states that he was imprisoned for a time with bishop Meletius of Lycopolis and they fell into an argument over the treatment of Christians who had either offered pagan sacrifice or surrendered scriptures to the authorities to save their lives during the persecution. Peter urged leniency while Meletius held firmly that the lapsed had abandoned their faith and needed to be rebaptised. Their argument became heated, and was ended when Peter hung a curtain between him and Meletius. One of Meletius' followers was a priest named Arius (modern scholarship differs on whether this was the same Arius as became involved with the Arian controversy a few years later).[5][6] According to Severus of Ashmumeen, Arius tried in vain to receive absolution from the Patriarch before Peter was executed, and before dying Peter anathematized Arius as a heretic and excommunicated him.[3]"

So, Arianism was not Arius' first offense.

12:45 We all agree that the presence of clergy defecting from the faith does not disprove the promise of indefectibility.

The question is just, is the "clergy defecting" now the big group and the "indefectibles" the smaller one?

It would not have been the first time, like when God chose:

• Hebrews over Gentiles
• Judah over Ephraim (or Rohoboam over Jeroboam)
• St. Peter, also known as Kephas over Kaiaphas.

Or, for a certain time in the IVth C. clergy excommunicated by Nicaea were holding the buildings, while the real bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius had an underground presence and had to hide in the desert. El intruso se llamó Jorge.

Take a look at your debate with "Fr" Casey and his view on "theology, therefore not exact history"... and Antipope Emeritus said similar things, as pointed out by Dimond Brothers.