Open Letter to The Dimond Brothers

[MilesXpisti]

Also, if the sedevacantist position is true then almost certainly there can never be a Pope elected that the Catholic faithful can know for certain (or even a reasonable degree of certainty) is the Pope-----is this Catholiscism–?so either u deny the sedevacantist position or admit that the election of another Pope is almost if not def impossible

You seem to think that Papal Election has always been so cut and dry. Think of the Western Schism (1378 - 1417). During this period, there were at least two claimants to the Papal Three, and for seven years of it, there were three (Avignon, Rome and Pisa). We know now which was the correct line, but at the time, there were canonized saints backing different Popes. How was it resolved? Antipopes were deposed and a general council was called (Constance) to elect a Pope. How does this apply to an interregnum? Quite simply, having no clear claimant to the Seat of Peter is tantamount to having none, as you said that “there [could] never be a Pope elected that the Catholic faithful can know for certain (or even a reasonable degree of certainty) is the Pope”. Why? Because the See of Peter has a dual purpose: to serve as the supreme judge of all ecclesiastical matters, and to exist as a visible anchor of unity. If there is no clear pope, then certain unity is impossible. Sedevacantists do not deny the succession of the See of Peter (indeed most believe fervently that it will be filled again), and cling not to him that they believe sits invalidly there. Does loyalty belong to the Successor or the Seat? I’ve always firmly believed that it belongs to the Seat (a thought echoed throughout Patristic and scholastic writing), else an interregnum would invalidate perpetuity of successors (through an absence of a successor) and Vatican I would indeed be shown fallible according to your interpretation.

Why the Seat, and not the Successor? Because the Successor is man, the office Divine, and even a Pope can fall into heresy and cease to be Pope, thus protecting the Office and Seat from error, as taught in Ex Apostaluts Officio promulgated by Pius IV.

 

[cam100]

Think of the Western Schism (1378 - 1417). During this period, there were at least two claimants to the Papal Three, and for seven years of it, there were three (Avignon, Rome and Pisa). We know now which was the correct line, …

How do you really know which line was correct? How do you know Martin V was validly elected? Remember that Benedict XIII (of the third claimant line) never stepped down, but continued to insist that he was the real pope. How do you know he wasn’t right, and since his sucessor died, that we haven’t been without a valid pope ever since?

I know how I would answer these questions, but I am curious how they would be answered from a sedevacantist perspective.

 

[MilesXpisti]

How do you really know which line was correct? How do you know Martin V was validly elected? Remember that Benedict XIII (of the third claimant line) never stepped down, but continued to insist that he was the real pope. How do you know he wasn’t right, and since his sucessor died, that we haven’t been without a valid pope ever since?

This is a course of matter to take up with the Church, which thereafter declared which line was the valid one (that being the Roman line). Even if Benedict XIII had been the valid pope, there conclave to elect his successor consisted of only four Cardinals, three of which elected Clement VIII, the other by himself electing Benedict XIV, leaving the Avignon line in essentially the same mess that the entire Schism had been.

cam100:

I know how I would answer these questions, but I am curious how they would be answered from a sedevacantist perspective.

I wouldn’t know, as I’m not a sedevacantist. I just don’t like that they get so much hassle for something that is not doctrinally impossible.

 

[cam100]

cam100;2986640:

How do you really know which line was correct? How do you know Martin V was validly elected? Remember that Benedict XIII (of the third claimant line) never stepped down, but continued to insist that he was the real pope. How do you know he wasn’t right, and since his sucessor died, that we haven’t been without a valid pope ever since?

I know how I would answer these questions, but I am curious how they would be answered from a sedevacantist perspective.

This is a course of matter to take up with the Church, which thereafter declared which line was the valid one (that being the Roman line). Even if Benedict XIII had been the valid pope, there conclave to elect his successor consisted of only four Cardinals, three of which elected Clement VIII, the other by himself electing Benedict XIV, leaving the Avignon line in essentially the same mess that the entire Schism had been.

When was it declared by the Church that the Roman line was the valid one? When was it declared that Martin V was the true pope to end the confusion? If Benedict XIII was really the true pope, then Martin V wasn’t valid, so he couldn’t approve the Council of Contance. In that case, the council didn’t have the authority of a general council, so how could it declare a pope valid?

I’m asking these questions because I believe that in working through them to the answers, the problems of sedevanctism become clearer.

 

[Victory5]

The manner of election for a Pope has never been a fixed process. It can be election through the College of Cardinals. Historically, papal elections took place simply through a consensus of the episcopal hierarchy and the people of Rome, so there is nothing canonically requiring the presence of a College of Cardinals; this is entirely a matter of discipline.

As far as the canon is concerned, the perpetuity in question has nothing to do with election. Absolutely nil. There entire point of that chapter of Pastor Aeternus is to forever solemnly refute the belief of the Orthodox heretics that primacy ceased with St. Peter or that the primacy is held by another of patriarchal Sees. It says that the primacy of power over the Universal Church is perpetual, not that there has to be timely election. If it were dealing with that, then it would be disproved by interregnums, which historically have lasted several years at least. You’re reading something into it where nothing exists. There is absolutely nothing preventing a long interregnum.

Miles maybe I am not being clear so allow me to restate my argument. It is true that Papal elections were not always decided in the way they are today. However, for over 500 years this has been the ecclesiastical law of the Church. Vatican I specifically stated that the Pope has supreme authority, not only in faith and morals, but also discipline. It would take a Pope to change that discipline. The sedevacantist has a problem, as far as another election goes. Because all the Cardinals (appointed by Pius XIII) are dead. Who would decide who and how the next Pope would be elected. There were many ways (in the past) how Popes were elected. Who would have the correct theory?

Ok now on to Vatican I here is the canon: " Therefore,
if anyone says that
it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
let him be anathema. "

I dont see how one can hold that there can never be another election of a Pope and how that can be reconciled with this canon. The canon still says thet Peter will have successors in perpetuity. There has to be a known way a Pope can be elected for this canon to make sense.

 

[Victory5]

Remember this thread started with me challenging the Dimonds to a “re-match”-----Many times on the phone they have said that “they might want to debate again.” They have also stated that they are very “busy,” but will get back to me (they never have yet) Here is an excerpt from their web site—WATCH !!!THEY CHALLENGE THE PERSON IN THE CORRESPONDING E-MAIL TO DEBATE–WOW—THEN THEY CALL HIM A COWARD!!!(because he refuses) LOL FUNNY—I HAVE REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED THEM --I HAVE CALLED THEM OUT ON THEIR INCONSISTENCIES IN OUR FIRST DEBATE YET----HERE THEY ARE CHALLENGING SOMEONE ELSE—HMM I WONDER WHO THE REAL COWARDS ARE------- HERE YOU GO --from their e-exchanges–

Challenge refused

MHFM: This is a continuation of the “Get a clue” exchange below. That person responded with more critical comments, so we challenged him to a debate on our radio show and he (not surprisingly) refused.

If you are referring to the works of the evil one your divisiveness is one. Second, the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ. The manner you speak of the Holy Father thus equates to Christ Himself whom the Holy Father represents here on earth. The evil manner in which you write exposes that you do not have the heart and mind of Christ. The vitriol with which you write… makes you an easy pawn for the evil one, for whom you work fervently. Yours in Christ,

Jim.

MHFM: Oh really? Would you like to come on our radio program and debate the issue of whether the post-Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are true popes?

Thank you for the invitation. However, There is nothing to debate. I pray God will have mercy on your immortal soul.

MHFM: Exactly as we expected… you prove that you are a coward. In a debate it would be quite clear just how wrong you are that you know nothing about fidelity to the Catholic faith. You are exactly like so many other heretics we encounter; they throw out their comments but are afraid to meet us in a debate and defend their position- just as we expected. Someone just like you wrote a few weeks ago. We challenged him to a debate as well. He refused just like you.

 

[Rogerteder]

Brothers Peter and Michael,

I have repeatedly asked you to respond to my assertion that you misrepresented the truth in our debate(last October 2006) on sedevacantism. One of my main arguments, during the debate and in later conversations, was that there are no Cardinals alive that were appointed by Pius XII (the person you believe was the last Pope). This creates a problem for you because the conclave of Cardinals elects the Pope according to Church law. This law has been in effect for over 500 years. Since there are no more Cardinals, then how are the People of God to know who the next Pope will be? This situation has never ever occured in Church history and there is no teaching that has a resolution to this problem.

During our debate you asserted that there is a precedent for this in Church history.  You brought up the scenario concering Pope Martin (649--653) and Pope Eugene (654-657). You stated that Pope Eugene was elected Pope when Pope Martin was still alive.  You further stated that it is not clear how that occured since Pope Martin was still alive and  still Pope.  At the time I was not aware of this situation.  However, your example clearly does not at all refute my argument above. One only has to look at the dates of both Popes' reigns to see it does not even correlate to my argument.  Pope Martin only reigned for roughly four years, and Pope Eugene only reigned for roughly three. Your  argument would only make sense if in between Popes the Roman clergy (the electors at the time) all died and there were no electors alive at the time of the death of one of the Popes.  All your example proves is that there is some question on why Eugene's election occured. It is clear who elected him.  The fact is that you have never dealt with these issues and misrepresented the truth (whether intentionally or unintentionally). 
 I have repeatedly asked to come back and discuss this issue further with you.  Yet I have recieved no response.  I  hope that you will at least post this e-mail on your web site (with your response).  I only ask that you post it in its entirety.  I believe you two have very very dark souls, and believe you are leading many souls to hell.  You two are quick to condemn everyone in your path, yet you can't even find the time to give this argument a response.  I hesitate to call you two cowards, but it appears to me that you are just that.  So PLEASE!!!!!!!!! COME OUT FROM UNDER YOUR DESKS AND RESPOND--I WONT HURT YOU I PROMISE!!!!!       The challenge to debate this issue still stands.      

William Golle

P.S. This will be posted in Catholic Answers Traditional Catholicism forums

I have to agree. I was talking to one of my priest freinds, and he said the Dimonds refuse to answer this claim. They wont post the e-mail or respond in public. They have been challenged to debate the point in public but have refused to respond…

 

[Bridey]

I have to agree. I was talking to one of my priest freinds, and he said the Dimonds refuse to answer this claim. They wont post the e-mail or respond in public. They have been challenged to debate the point in public but have refused to respond…

This would no longer be true, Moderator. The entire Debate is on YouTube in 19 installments, and is also available on audio tape or CD. Your cut-off of further information is as “convenient” as was the life of Thomas More “cut off” by Wolsey and Cranmer.

Allowing the series of comments here to end without the final information and replies from Golle ought not to be allowed, for he has not replied to any of the evidence, merely is impuning the character of the Dimonds, a severely uncharitable act.

The Dimonds and thousands of Catholic priests and laity would agree that they know the Catholic Doctrine perfectly and express it with accuracy. Catholics such as we are all over the internet. It was our early efforts which brought conferences and discussions to the Catholic public when there was NO internet, but there are and were Catholics priests and scholars, i.e., Frs. Brey, Francis Fenton, Jos. Clifford Fenton, Baker, Cekada, Stemper, Egregyi, Coomaraswamy and Vaillancourt, and loyal well-catechized Catholics such as Omlor, Lane, Matatics, Daly, McCabe, Strojie, Kellner, and Gwynne, and hundreds of other laity along with the “ex” priests of the Conciliar system who were abandoned and evicted from their parishes. Let the Conciliars even answer for that! There are valid priests validly ordained by Lefebvre and many are not members of the SSPX. They hold the Catholic Faith as did all popes prior to 1958… They offer the Mass of Trent, not the Mass of Roncalli. These are Catholics who are rich and fulfilled in the Truth of Christ’s Catholic Church, sans recognition from former members who have abandoned the True Faith and themselves. Conciliar websites are unreceptive to even allowing Catholic truth as it existed for 1,958 years–and you know what that number means. Traditionalists will provide any and every reply to any challenge using Catholic Dogma and Patristic evidentiary proof, and have done so, as you well know… The Canon Law and Decretals of the Church proves the Doctrine is True. Golle never quotes Canon Law, but uses detraction on the character of the Dimonds and thereby all traditionalists --thinking to make his case. He does not make his case and provides no dogmatic proofs. Golle must refute a Doctor of the Church, Robert Bellarmine. He must answer Cajetan. Golle must reference the Canon Law before 1983 to make the case, there being no other credible law. The law has to refute sedevacantist positions which became immediate after the 1958 election. He can’t do it. Canon Law and scripture provides for the sheep to defend themselves against the Wolf. Vatican 2 and the New Mass are totally unsupported by valid Canon Law and the AAS or any Catechism but that of Trent prior to 1983. It is to make the de fide Trent, the AAS, and all previous Councils a mockery, and Doctrine defective. The New Canon Law is in direct opposition to the Canon Law of the Patristic and scriptural record. Conciliar scholars such as Keating and Hahn know this.