I debated the Dimond Brothers!!!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter williamgolle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

williamgolle

Guest
The debate is on their web site, and the topic is sedavacantism. In the debate I hammer home a number of points. My main argument was this: Vatican I teaches that Peter will have successors in perpetuity. This doesnt mean there will be a Pope every second of every period of time. All Catholics acknowledge that the Papal see is vacant in between Popes. In order for Vatican I to make sense the Church has to be able to discern who the Pope is and who the Pope isnt. There has never been a period in Church history where the Papal see has been vacant, and all the electors (in this case the Cardinals ) have also died off. There has always been a way to discern who the Pope was/is. Even during the great western schism one could still discern who was validly elected. The sedavacantist position sets up utter chaos because, unless God comes down from heaven and writes it in the sky, one can never no for sure who holds the Papal see.(who would elect a new Pope?) The Dimond brothers responded by saying there was a case in Church history when a Pope was elected, but it is not known how. (at the time of the debate I didnt know about this case) They cited Pope Martin I (Pope from 649-653) and Pope Eugene (654-657). Pope Martin was exiled and Pope Eugene was elected Pope while Martin was still alive. Look at the dates. How long did Pope Eugene serve for? 3 years !!! actually not quite 3 years. (I went back and looked at this example after the debate) How can this be used to contradict or correlate with what the sedavacantist position is??? Even if Pope Eugene was not validly elected(he is recognized as a valid Pope) he still only reigned for three years, and the electors (Roman clergy at the time) were still alive to elect another valid Pope. NEVER EVER EVER HAS THERE BEEN A PERIOD IN CHURCH HISTORY WHERE THE PAPAL SEE HAS BEEN VACANT AND ALL THE ELECTORS TO ELECT ANOTHER POPE WERE ALSO GONE!!! THIS IS AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO BROTHER PETER AND BROTHER MICHAEL DIMOND TO DEBATE MORE ON THIS ISSUE OR ANY OTHER ISSUE THEY WANT. I HAVE REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED BOTH OF THESE BROTHERS TO HAVE ANOTHER DEBATE BUT HAVENT HEARD BACK FROM THEM.
 
ACtually, theoretically, the electors are NOT gone. If the Cardinals are incapacitated, the duty to elect the Pope falls to the priests of rome and then to the people of the ROman Catholic Church, so it’s not quite accurate to say if there is a vacancy there is no means of reconciling it. Also, if the Post-COnciliar Catholicism of the day takes sedevacantists seriously enough at any point, they can just convene all the factions and BAM council of constance II. Accept the elected as the will of the Holy SPirit.
 
The Cardinals are dead–according to the sedavacantist position–the oldest Cardinal was appointed by PaulVI----there are no Cardinals appointed by Pius XII–anyway—WHERE DO U GET THAT THE PREISTS ELECT THE POPE IF THE CARDINALS CANT???/?? justify that with Doucuments------
 
There Is No Document That Says The Roman Clergy Elects The Pope In Case Of Emergency----nnnooonnnneeee!!! So Your Claim Is Wrong----get Over It —sedevacantism Is Wrong!!!
 
The Cardinals are dead–according to the sedavacantist position–the oldest Cardinal was appointed by PaulVI----there are no Cardinals appointed by Pius XII–anyway—WHERE DO U GET THAT THE PREISTS ELECT THE POPE IF THE CARDINALS CANT???/?? justify that with Doucuments------
The sede vacantists only recognise cardinals appointed by the Popes that they approve of. That means that all cardinals not appointed by the last pope they liked Paul 6 - are not valid. Therefore therefore, in the opinion of the sede vacantists, there are no cardinals left to vote for the pope. Their position is ridiculous - if cardinals are only valid if they are appointed by a pope approved by the sede vacantists, that means 2 things.

1- there are many popes that the sede vacantists did not like going back 2,000 yrs, include all the pope after Paul 6. That means that the seat of Peter must have be vacant many times and there is no unbroken lineage of popes going back to Christ. Surely this invalidates Catholicism as the true faith, since that religion’s claims to authority depends on the unbroken of peter’s successors to the present age. Since the sede vacantists claim authority from this same lineage, their faith can’t be true either.

2- If cardinals are only valid if they are appointed by a pope approved by the sede vacantists, does that not mean these people are claiming divine right to approve popes and decide on the validity of cardinals? Doesn’t that mean a fringe group takes upon themselves infallible decisions - the preserve of the successor of peter?

Historically, the christian community, led by the apostles and other church leaders, choose the new leader of the whole church. 499AD - Ut si quis papa superstite issued by the synod of bishops regulating papal elections - ended the custom of laity electing the pope. Only priests can now elect pope. 1059 - Pope Nicholas II publishes In *Nomine Domini *stating that only cardinal bishops can elect pope. Later on, cardinals, had the vote and monarchs as the nobility of Rome can veto a pope they didn’t like. Following the 1417 papal conclave at the Council of Constance, only the cardinals could elect the pope.1904 - Pius X ended the right of Catholic monarchs to veto the elected pope. Read Greg Tolbin’s ‘Selecting the Pope: Uncovering the Mysteries of Papal Elections’.
 
It’s quite simple: The previous mode of election of the bishop of Rome was by the roman clergy and the laity. Later the college of cardinals was created. If it ever were to seem that the college was destroyed, then there would be no logical reason to not devolve back to the old form until the newly elected pope could create new cardinals.
 
In response to point 2: No. TO recognize and proclaim a universal truth is not the same as uniquely invented truth. Read Pope innocent II, Thomas Aquinas, Paul IV, St. Rober Bellarmine and see what they had to say about a manifest heretic seitting on the throne of Peter. We do not judge the Pope, because “he who does not believe has been condemned already.”
 
In response to point 2: No. TO recognize and proclaim a universal truth is not the same as uniquely invented truth. Read Pope innocent II, Thomas Aquinas, Paul IV, St. Rober Bellarmine and see what they had to say about a manifest heretic seitting on the throne of Peter. We do not judge the Pope, because “he who does not believe has been condemned already.”
Fide,

Have you considered what current canon law (from at least 1917) says about a heretical Bishop? It is certainly worth considering as I believe it shows an error in the Sedevacantist position.

It also should be stated that current canon law abrogates Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Basically current canon laws says this: A heretical Bishop, although cut off from the soul of the Church, nevertheless retains his jurisdiction until a formal sentence has been pronounced.

The Church has a body and a soul. A heretical Bishop is cut off from the soul of the Church, but is only cut off form the body through an official sentence.

The exception would be a Bishop who falls into manifest heresy. But manifest heresy in this case refers to someone who actually visibly leaves the Church. For example, if a Bishop who joined a Protestant denomination, or openly declared himself to be an Athiest and no longer a member of the Church. This would constitute manifest heresy and as such no sentence would need to be issued. Since the person outwardly and openly left the Church, he would loose his jurisdiction without a sentence.

Now, the Sedavacantists maintain, based on some quotes from Saints and Cum ex Apostolatus Officio that a Pope who merely deviates from the faith looses his office. But that is not what the 1917 code of canon law says.

They also claim that the actions of John Paul II, for example, make him a manifest heretic. But that is a subjective claim and, in my opinion, very risky. A manifest heretic in canon law is under the category of someone who openly and willingly leaves the Church. Whether John Paul II was a formal heretic can be debated, but he didn’t openly leave the Church, even if some of his actions were very bad.

In my opinion, the safer course to take for a person who is considering Sedevacantism is to “suspend judgment” and not openly declare the Pope to be an Antipope. As laymen, we have no obligation ot make such claims. In my opinion, it is much more prudent to just suspend judgment. There is no risk in that, but there is a serious risk in declaring a true Pope to be an Antipope. Since we have no obligation to make such a declaration, it’s just not worh it.

That’s my opinion.
 
Fide you cant just decide to mAKE your own rules regarding papal elections–just becuse the Roman Clergy use to elect the Pope doesnt mean we revert back to that in emergency cases–the bottom line is that this precedent has never happend in all of Church history–and it reduces the Church to utter chaos—
 
The Church’s Teaching on how to elect a true Pope in a grave/emergency situation: “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ’of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” (ibid., no. 204) (The Church of the Incarnate Word by Monsignor Charles Journet)

Something to look out for:

“By about twelve years shall the millennium have passed when the resplendent mantle of legitimate power shall emerge from the shadows where it was being kept by the schism. And beyond harm from the one [the usurper antipope] who is blocking the door of salvation, for his deceitful schism shall have come to an end.”

(Prophecy of Blessed Tomasuccio de Foligno c. 1319-1377 A.D.)

THere ya go.
 
The Church’s Teaching on how to elect a true Pope in a grave/emergency situation: “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ’of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” (ibid., no. 204) (The Church of the Incarnate Word by Monsignor Charles Journet)
Do you have any quotes from Church documents? Or just the opinion of a guy from the 1500’s?
 
Exactly–he has no church documents—that is a theologian"s opinion—it has never occurred in the history of the Church–that the papal see is vacant and all the electors have died off—IT’S CRAZY!!! ALL THAT BECAUSE THEY PRIVATLEY INTERPRET TEACHING BY THE POST VATICAN II POPES TO BE HERSEY----UNBELIVABLE-------
 
It’s kind of funny…if you google that title which is actually “De Comparatione” you get about 3 pages of some of the craziest sedevacantist sites you’ve ever seen. Apparently, this is their silver bullet that proves to the rest of the world that reality is not what it seems!
 
what does “sedavacantism” mean?
It means the “vacant seat” or the “seat is vacant” which refers to the Chair of Peter. Sedevacantism, for this conversation, is the a group or groups of people who believe there hasn’t been a Pope in approximately 40 years and that the Chair of Peter has been vacant all of that time.
 
Is it insanity to hold to a truth that others depart from. THE 2 VATICAN COUNCIL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM CATHOLIC FAITH: (ANd by the way, all your arguments have been ad hominem)

Ecumenism is the spirit of Vatican II, which is the abandonment of the very notion of dogma, the very notion of absolute, unchanging revealed truths. Ecumenism detests the rigid dogmas of the pre-Vatican II Church. Instead, these dogmas must have their lines blurred, and become negotiable, at least in their meaning and import, with the contradicting doctrines of false religions.

It is ecumenism that is at the root of all the problems after Vatican II. Ecumenism could not tolerate a Church that said that it alone was the one true Church of Christ, and that outside of it there is no salvation. It demanded a new ecclesiology, one in which the Church would be seen as a “communion” to which you can partially belong and partially not belong. Salvation could not be restricted to the Catholic Church; you cannot do ecumenism with those whose religions are leading them to hell. Rather all religions lead to God some more directly, some less directly. All religions have value.

Since the papacy is the greatest obstacle to ecumenism, as Montini (Paul VI) himself said, it was clear that it, too, had to go. As a result, collegiality was taught by Vatican II, the doctrine that the supreme authority of the Church is vested in the college or body of bishops.

Likewise in the moral sphere, ecumenism could not tolerate a Church which insisted that civil society recognize it as the one true Church of Christ, to the exclusion of others. Ecumenism could not tolerate that those who profess false religions be told by the state that they had no right to profess or practice these false religions, since to do so would be an insult to God. As a result, the council taught the doctrine of religious liberty.

We say, therefore, that there are four major heresies in Vatican II: **(1) ecumenism itself, the basis of the rest of them; (2) the new ecclesiology; (3) collegiality; (4) religious liberty. **

Besides the heresy of ecumenism itself — I think apostasy is a better term — it is religious liberty which has occupied the attention of most, as the point in which Vatican II makes its departure from tradition. It is true that it does make a departure, and it does so with striking contradiction to the teachings of recent popes on this issue.

The implication is, however, that there is nothing else wrong with Vatican II, except ecumenism and religious liberty. There are two other very important heresies, heresies which open the door to ecumenical abominations: the new ecclesiology and collegiality.
 
On Ecumenism:

"MORTALIUM ANIMOS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON RELIGIOUS UNITY
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Never perhaps in the past have we seen, as we see in these our own times, the minds of men so occupied by the desire both of strengthening and of extending to the common welfare of human society that fraternal relationship which binds and unites us together, and which is a consequence of our common origin and nature. For since the nations do not yet fully enjoy the fruits of peace - indeed rather do old and new disagreements in various places break forth into sedition and civic strife - and since on the other hand many disputes which concern the tranquillity and prosperity of nations cannot be settled without the active concurrence and help of those who rule the States and promote their interests, it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.
  1. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
  2. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.”[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top