IN THIS interesting debate from last September, Peter Dimond and Jeff Cassman take opposing positions on whether the Vatican II popes are true popes.

I recommend listening in full. Dimond makes the far stronger case here, but please note that neither man draws the logical conclusions. A reader elaborates below.

By the way, I found it odd that the moderator was drinking beer.

I guess that’s to make serious theological discussion seem cool, which it most definitely is not and never will be.

David Zweber writes:

I watched the debate in full, very closely, late last night.

Brother Peter Dimond seems to win the debate hands down, but I wonder if you caught something notable mentioned by Mr. Cassman. At about the 1 hour 55 minute mark, Mr. Cassman brings up the fact — to his credit — that if Brother Dimond’s claims about his religious order are true—since his order does not issue from the juridical authority of the Church, there must be miracles to substantiate its authenticity. In other words, without miracles, Brother Dimond could not be a true Benedictine and cannot legally claim the allegiance of his followers as a religious.

What Mr. Cassman does not mention, and he should have, is that the very same principle applies to the Society of St. Pius X, to which Cassman belongs (I’ll leave out here all mention of the Novus Ordo). That is, since this religious community does not issue from the authority of the Church, for it to be acceptable to true Catholics, the SSPX founder or current leaders must also demonstrate its authenticity — its extraordinary “mission” from God, by the performance of miracles.

Neither of these groups, the Benedictine monastery of Brothers Michael and Peter Dimond, nor the SSPX; and, to follow things logically, nor the CMRI, the late Dolan and Cekada, nor Bishop Sanborn, or any other traditionalist group, has faculties, canonical jurisdiction, or mission from a true Pope. For this reason, they must remain off-limits for all Catholics who wish to maintain the integrity of their Catholic faith and practice, unless, of course, again they can bring forth miracles.

It’s a seemingly minor point in Mr. Cassman’s favor that is easily overlooked, but in fact is a rather significant counterargument. Still, Mr. Cassman fails to extend its applicability to the very organization of which he is a defender.

I emphasize this point so carefully, however, because although Brother Dimond’s arguments, are, on balance, more compelling, people may and will wrongly conclude that notwithstanding the Dimond arguments otherwise which preclude attendance at the Masses of traditionalist priests and groups (namely, due in part to their rejection of “no baptism of desire or blood”) such groups or priests are at least potentially acceptable “alternatives” for Mass and Sacraments should they come around to the “right positions” —that is, Peter Dimond’s understanding of these theological nuances.

The point I’m making is that both debaters are deficient because in these days, as always in fact, Catholics must stay away from intruded bishops and priests of the traditionalist groups, as also the clergy of the Novus Ordo Establishment, which, to wit, includes Eastern Rite clergy as well.

No one of these groups has the mission from a true Pope and they are therefore all off-limits.

I know in writing this to you I’m “speaking to the choir”, but to my mind, it is the one single point in the debate where Mr. Cassman was very strong, and Brother Peter Dimond quite deficient.

Laura writes:

Thank you. Good points.

I also want to draw readers’ attention to another weakness in Dimond’s responses. Jeff Cassman kept saying, in so many words, “Why should anyone listen to you? You are outnumbered and represent a lone, fringe opinion.”

But Dimond’s position on the papacy — and I’m not endorsing all his views on other subjects — is implicitly endorsed by all the Catholics who ever lived, since they followed, whether they were conscious of it or not, the Church’s teachings on heresy. That’s many millions of people! Cassman, in fact, represents a fringe opinion.

Kathy writes:

Thanks for posting the debate between Bro. Dimond and J. Cassman. We need more of these debates on the validity of the V2 Nuchurch, rather than the distraction of paying attention to Nuchurch heresy and gnashing teeth over “pope” Francis.
I’m always surprised when people use the “fringe” and truth depends on the number of people who believe it. Christ himself was “fringe” and radical. Also using the argument from authority as Cassman does. That always reeks of desperation. We are told to “judge the fruit”.

The moderator is drinking beer because the webcast is hosted by “Pints with Aquinas”, part of their gimmick.

Laura writes:

Can’t imagine St. Thomas Aquinas drinking beer while discussing theology.

Please follow and like us: