Why I'm NOT taking down the Sedevacantism debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2022
- Please follow me on Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
Join our Locals community: mattfradd.locals.com/support
Good responses to the debate:
Trent Horn - • Peter Dimond’s Sedevac...
Michael Lofton - • REVIEW: Sedevacantism ...
The Logos Project - • 2 Ex-Sedes Refute Dimond
Scholastic Answers - • On Papal Heresy: Respo... - บันเทิง
Imagine how dishonest it would be for Matt to take down every debate in which the person taking his position lost. He would lose all credibility as a debate platform host.
Neither of them held his position. One guy was a complete schismatic and Cassman is an SSPX guy who is also a sedacavantist guy just not as much so as the other guy
@@brianfarley926 On the topic of the debate, Cassman and Fradd held the same position (that John XXIII through Francis were not anti-popes)
@@Seethi_C Cassman is SSPX they deny Vatican II. So no they don’t hold the same position. Cassman isn’t like Diamond but he’s in heresy right now
@@brianfarley926 Are you even attempting to understanding what I am saying?
I am saying ON THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE, of which the resolution was "Are John XXIII Through Francis True Popes", Cassman and Fradd agree, thus Fradd was on Cassman's side of the debate.
@@brianfarley926 So clearly you believe Vatican II is infallible, correct?
I'm glad you're being consistent and principled Matt we're adults and if you lose a debate you lose a debate 🤷
Exactly. Losing a debate doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you didn't make as many good points as the other guy.
very informative debate on both sides but Br Dimond had his ducks in order so to speak. It has motivated me to further research.
@@racheljames7 Cope.
@@racheljames7 True
The only reason Br Dimond was perceived to win was bc he has a respectable following that inundated the comments. Cassman held his position well. The problem is that this is a bizarre position and you are giving it an additional platform sending it far and wide. Most people need not be concerned with it, yet now you are leading many down a dangerous rabbit hole.
Don’t get me wrong, the content they put out is incredible, certainly superior to the false sheppards and false teachings we were brought up with in the last half century- and most is certainly Catholic, but it puts souls in a state of limbo of sorts bc then you get stuck with their position- which then reverts to this constant concern for controversy versus sanctifying ourselves day in and day out.
You should absolutely host another debate with Brother Peter against any self-proclaimed traditionalist.
I agree. I have heard most of all the debates Brother Peter Dimond has throughout the years. They all result in the opposition being offended and result to, “well who are YOU to accuse??!” Which the answer is always,
The Catholic Church, Saints, Church Fathers, Popes, and the Blessed Mother herself have always said this, and Vatican Council 2 is doing/teaching the complete 180. 😐
I have a feeling Peter won't be invited to debate any of these people Pints linked responses from. Peter did a short response to one of those on odysee. Pints said above he regretted the debate. The left (here posing as Christian) will do the usual ban of any person that effectively exposes their falsehoods, only permitting straw men on to debate.
@@williamearle6281 Hi William, I got corrected by a friend for this too, you should call him by his title, Brother Peter. But other than that I agree with your comment!
True, he shouldn’t regret hosting this debate. He should instead host more such debates between Dimond and others (also invite Mario Derksen of the superb Novus Ordo Watch site to debate those who have yet to see the truth of the empty papal chair). It’s also praiseworthy of him to admit that Dimond won. This debate should cause him to seriously question his support of the entity now led by Jorge Bergoglio. It’s de fide (of faith) that the actual Catholic Church is indefectible. We’re divinely promised from Jesus Himself that hell shall never prevail over the actual Church (Mt. 16:18). But hell HAS manifestly prevailed over the entity founded at Vatican II and now led by Bergoglio. Therefore, this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
@@redpillpharmacy6877 No, hell has NOT prevailed yet. If hell prevailed, there would be no valid priest and no valid Eucharist. The Eucharist is still valid in the V II Church. We know it is because we still get Eucharistic miracles and people still have mystical experiences involving the Eucharist.
I’m in favor of debates because I don’t base MY faith on debates, but my sister became Catholic by losing the debate to her converted son, and every one of her family of 8 but 1 converted.
But 1 have converted so far, unless this person has passed, in which case may God have mercy on their soul.
I have heard of many people converting to Islam for exactly the same reason, and bringing their friends and families along with them. Doesn't mean they were right - just means they were easily persuaded.
So glad she became Catholic
Only the 2nd oldest of 6 children has not yet come into the Church. And they didn’t just “come along”, they miss Mass only if sick. They have all married Catholics and have had their children baptized Catholic and each have received the Sacrament for which the are old enough.
Jeff Cassman and the rest of the R&R crowd need to learn that one need not be a coroner to recognize a manifestly dead body. It takes no legal authority to recognize manifest reality.
Thank you for NOT taking it down. Doing so is the same as the cancel culture do when they don’t like ideas against them. I learned a lot from that debate. God bless!
That as well as the automated censorship on sites like this, which reveal where the Novus Ordo supporters stand.
yes
I wouldn't take it down. Some debates are one-sided, some boxing matches are one-sided. Doesn't mean they didn't happen. I am not a sedevacantist, but clearly the dude was prepared for this. People need to stop being afraid of differing views.....otherwise we are no better than the "cancel culture."
The Novus Ordo supporters are exactly the same as the cancel culture people.
But a sedevantist is just an EO who likes the Latin Rite circa 1962. It's a confusing disaster on that front.
@@atrifle8364 They condemn the EO though.
A Trifle You are being dishonest with your statement. A sedevacantist is a follower of Christ that adheres to the written word of God - the Holy Bible - and the traditions passed down from the apostles. All others are in the church of pedophiles, the anti Catholic, non apostolic, church of everyone can get to heaven no matter what they believe. That is Luciferian at it's core : do what you want is the philosophy of satanism. See the counterfeit church saying how you can get to heaven in other religions, you can get to heaven if you have married - divorced - & - remarried, you can get to heaven if you live an unholy life, you can get to heaven if you were aborted and never had a chance to be baptized......see my point? The counterfeit church teaches the same philosophy as satanism and yet never talks about hell. Look to the Mother of God. She told St. Dominic that one day through the Rosary and Brown Scapular she would save the world. At Fatima she told everyone to pray the Rosary and wear the brown scapular. She didn't say to follow people who teach a faith opposite to what her Son gave the apostles. Wake up. Leave the Whore of Babylon, wear the brown scapular and daily pray all 15 decades of the Holy Rosary. Buy this Out Lady will remember you and pray for your protection as well. Angels will be with you always and at the end she will be at your side. Do not doubt that God have given her the graces for this.
I'm a reconvert (unsure if I can call myself a cradle catholic), could anyone explain what EO means?
Brother Dimond did not attack the authority of the Church, he affirmed it.
Good on you Matt! 100% agree…do not remove the debate, God Bless ✝️🕊
I personally wish you would do even more content on sedevacantism. It is a very important issue in our time, as we are struggling for the heart of the Church. Cowards run from debates. You are taking the right stance; do not let the mob scare you. Honest to goodness, serious talks about sedevacantism are the main reason I subscribe to your channel.
Trent Horn is the guy to take on Dimond.
Amen!
I agree wholeheartedly
@reformedstoic1581 trent horn won't debate Dimond.
Taking down a debate because you disagree with the outcome is like the childhood equivalent of telling everyone else you’re taking your ball and going home.
Thanks for leaving it up.
Or Amazon Prime when reviews don't go your way.
@@TickleMeElmo55 amen to that
It's cancel culture, as simple as that
People can't handle the truth. Bro Dimond won the debate.
People don’t believe in the truth, they make convenient things from the reality they see before them into truth.
@@collectiveconsciousness5314it’s called cognitive dissonance
YES MATT THANK YOU! I didn’t even think to take down the debate. That would be a cowardly move. And do NOT EVER regret hosting the debate. It shows what happens when we are not ready to debate the truth
The whole intellectual tradition of Western Europe was re-invigorated by the dialectical method of the great Schoolmen of Paris. It would be anti-Thomistic to take down a debate on what amounts to a rather simple area of doctrine. The reason Brother Dimond won the debate is simply because Tradition is essentially cut and dry on this topic. All a Lefebvrist can do is what Lefebvre himself did: dance around the truth without ever acknowledging the ecclesial consequences that pertain to it. And so, it is Lefebvrism, that ultimately lost the debate, as per usual.
‘Sede vacante’ is the most important debate in Church today. I look forward to this and other sites hosting more debaters tackling this difficult topic. How about Trent Horn-Bp Donald Sanborn debate?
The real showdown would be between Trent Horn and Br. Dimond. Please make it happen Matt!
And if dimond wins that too?
@@Bbos2383 We'll see about it.
@@Bbos2383 then we know the truth
yes I hope so please let more of br. dimond on
Trent horn was asked by Dimond to debate and declined…
It would be an injustice to take down the video. What are people afraid of, The TRUTH? Good going Pints. Oh almost forgot, you can't refute Sedevacantist because it is the true Catholic faith. But not all who claim to be Sedevacantist follow the true faith, the Roman Catholic faith and magisterium of 2ooo years.
Scandal is too often the term thrown around by those in the Church that find a topic uncomfortable to contemplate. Those that claim that the Sedevacantist discussion is scandalous are like the people that go around calling things 'problematic' and being offended at most everything.
Agreed 100%👍
Exactly. I don't agree with sedes, but I understand their concern and treating them like lepers and lumping Traditional Catholics in with them is pretty stupid.
@@theresefrancis9283 The sedes have rejected Peter again.. they are not traditional Catholics because they not Catholics at all.
@@atrifle8364 You are conflating the bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic Church and the holding of the title of Catholic, which merely means universal. Orthodox Christians have just as valid of a claim on Catholic, but they are not ROMAN Catholic. To claim otherwise is simply hubris.
@@danielh1591 Ah, but Sedevacantists are *not* Eastern Orthodox, are they? They accept the primacy of the Successor of Peter which is the actual sticking point between Catholics and Orthodox. And pretending otherwise may not be hubris, but it certainly is disingenuous.
With all the censorship that has gone on recently and the resulting lack of trust that has rightfully stemmed from it, I can really appreciate your principled approach to this. Looking at the strengths and weaknesses in the debate we can learn from this discussion, strengthen our position for next time, and move forward.
Exactly this! Debaters have to be able to trust that their debate will stay platformed even if they 'win' when the host might disagree with their position. _And_ from the audience perspective, we can learn from a loss in one debate, to improve our arguments for the next debate. I think Matt has handled the followup well; especially since he added links to followups for the sake of people scandalized in this case.
I can see trying to strengthen an argument against going full sedevacantist, but if these media establishment-backed guys try to deny all that's wrong with the Novus Ordo and Francis you are dishonest. And Dimond didn't even mention problems with Vat II you can't mention on yewtube without getting your comment insta-deleted.
Please bring us more Brother Diamond! He has a brilliant mind and if you disagree with him, listening to him only helps you fortify your own position! I would be very disappointed and lose trust in this channel if you took that conversation down. Cheers Matt! 🍻
Why regret it? If anything, you need to host another debate with Dimond. This is the kind of dialogue the Catholic world needs right now.
Taking it down would cause a Streisand effect, where censoring something brings more attention and legitimacy to it
Let's be clear on this. Don't endanger your faith on the basis of debate. Winning a debate is not always consonant with speaking for the truth. How many times have our own consciences lost arguments with the far more clever father of lies who tempts us to betray the Good with beguiling and persuasive rationalizations we are ill-equipped to oppose.
Yes but quoting church dogma, papal decrees, and the lives of the saints wouldn't be described by the type of debate you are referring to, in fact, it would be the side of the Good.
@@parchment543 I'm missing your point. No doubt I'm being a bit obtuse this hour of the morning.
To clarify, I'm all for rational discussion/give and take. However, "debate" begs for a winner and a loser, and truth doesn't always win out.
@johnsposato5632 so what wasn't truth here then exactly?
The big weakness of debate is that someone who is experienced as a debater and who is a great talker can "win" a debate even if they may be wrong on facts etc.
True, but Brother Dimond has the facts on his side on this issue. That was made very obvious during this debate. The Great Apostasy has been predicted since St. Paul mentioned it in his second letter to the Thessalonians. Also our Blessed Lady has spoken of it in many of her apparitions. Vatican 2 was the harbinger.
Some are blessed with the Devil's own tongue, could debate one to believe the Earth is flat and sitting on a tower of turtles
@@mattitude4464So you believe we're on a spinning ball that's hurtling out into space?!! Ha! Ha! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I'll give you a starting point - The United Nations logo is the flat earth.
@Danny-zm5rh I don't believe the earth is flat, but I don't believe in the "moon landings" either. The earth is definitely a globe. Eric Dubay is an actor who adheres to Eastern mysticism. The youtube channel, Fatima Sacrifice, has 50+ proofs the earth is a globe. Sincerely
Did Matt watch Brother Peter's response to Trent Horn's rebuttal? There were some pretty serous issues with Trent's response that he covered. I'm glad the comments section on the original debate was resurrected. Many of us were unable to continue conversations in the comments section once it became restricted.
Was JuTube responsible for that?
Not sure how it happened
@@collectiveconsciousness5314 JuTube lol.
DON'T REGRET!!! This is needed! If you take down the debate, we lose.
Looking forward for the debate between Bro Peter Dimond (Vatican I Catholic) and Trent Horn (Vatican II Sect).
Dimond is so well versed in sedevacantism that few, if any, could go the proverbial ''3 rounds'' with him. We shouldn't worry about the indefectibility of the Catholic Church so long as we remember that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church only if the Pope uses the Petrine Power for the purpose that Christ intended it to be employed and in the right way for doing so. Unless that criteria of legitimate purpose and righteous manner for invoking the Petrine Power are met, then the grace of infallibility is not really activated. Given the miserable, debauched condition of the Church of Vatican II, it is highly likely that the Papal Petrine Power has not been truly activated even once since the death of Pope Pius XII. However, the Petrine Power remains perfect and intact since 1958 and merely awaits fresh activation by a worthy Pope directly selected by God apart from the corrupt, rigged Conclave elections of past years. The visions of Blessed Anna Marie Taigi provide a compelling scenario of that miraculous accession to the Papal Throne. About Vatican II: Just as by the signature of one Pope the decrees of Vatican II were seemingly enacted, so also a succeeding Pope, on his own initiative, can annul and void Vatican II altogether, as just so much junk from the evil 1960's.
As a protestant watching this I can say what would be lost: I would lose the respect that I currently hold for Matt and his channel. 🙂
I don't understand how any adult can be Protestant when all you have to ask your pastor is what year is our church founded? So many children have been mentally ruined and brainwashed by willfully ignorant adults of such a simple question.
Thank you for honesty in a time of lies.
Brother Dimond just now released a new video exposing Trent Horn and challenging him to a debate.
Yep. The commenters here can have their wish.
Exactly
Trent makes a vedio, that is cowardly, he should debate aganist brother Peter..
Ooh, it's gotten lively!!
Brother Dimond's video in reply to Trent Horn's rebuttal: th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
maybe don't take it down but have another that will settle the score per se. Make sure the truth is known. Bring in someone that can defend this position. John Salza has his True Pope False Pope book that takes their errors apart. Bring the best against their best.
@YP Poe Why do you keep accusing John of backing out? My understand is that John and Peter could not come to an agreement on the topic and/or format of the debate. Your assertion that John backed out is uncharitable
Honesty is an important virtue. And I appreciate it very much.
Where I was frustrated with Cassman’s job, I always remember something I once heard about debates.
Debates are not meant to end a discussion, they are meant to create them.
Why would anyone want the video to be taken down? Recently, I have gotten the impression that the Novus Ordo side wants a type of gag order so that the other side(s) don't get their word out. I am not a sedevacanist, but have unemotionally and respectfully made comments of concerns that I have about the church and have been attacked and strongly encouraged to delete my comments. Is this not a free society any longer?
I came to that debate because I’m considering sedevacantism. So it was helpful. SSPX Priests should debate Bro Dimond and watch him win again because Sedevacantism is making a lot of sense to me now after being with the SSPX since 2019
It’s very noble of you Matt to keep this debate posted on your channel. There are many people who are unaware of the heresies by bishops and even the pope. This is why it is so important to follow the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Because clearly there are too many times in history and now that individuals are causing confusion and if you do not point this out you are leading people into sin! Let’s pray for our pope bishops and to check every word that they speak of to make sure that it matches true Catholic traditional teachings! God Bless🙏🏼
Brother Peter released a new video refuting Trent Horn. I'm sure that Brother Peter is not afraid to come back onto your show to debate Trent or anyone you throw at him. Brother Peter wins debates because he holds to the true position. He is consistent in his faith while non-sedevacantists are not consistent.
And he's been so for decades now. Production values increased but their content still remains the same.
“Scandalous” = We Lost and We’re Trying to do Damage Control
You lost, cope and seethe, cope and seethe!
Integrity is rare this days, it's refreshing to see it in action.
Truth does not need to be defended with censorship.
Agree with you Matt - by leaving it up you give people the opportunity to learn from it and therefore refute it. To take it down would be cowardly and running away from the reality at hand. Keep it up so we can do better next time.
Get someone else on to debate him. I want to hear more
I agree that the debate should stay. But perhaps it wasn't prudent having someone from the SSPX defend our side? God bless you Matt. Love your content.
"Sedes attack the authority of the church." If the church can send you to hell with heresy and error, then what authority from Christ is that?
@YP Poe Okay then Francis doesn't have the authority of the papacy then.
Completely agree. We must hold fast to open dialogue/debate. Your channel has been great for this, and I appreciate your consistency.
Well said, sir. Because Honest discussion, dialogue, and debate is so “messy” and uncomfortable at times many do not really support it as thoroughly as they ought to do, and for that reason it is all the more important for us to champion open discussion and debate. I’m glad for your voice in this.
It's not a bad thing that the debate didn't clearly go the way we'd have liked in our favour but these discussions are always worth having. It's like you said, the debate prompted others to come forward with answers that weren't there in the moment. It also helps us be aware of some counters points we might come up against and prompts us to think about how we can help explain the faith in response to those points. So, aye, I'd back you in keeping it up. We learn either way. :)
He should have won that debate. Obviously he was not prepared.
@@atrifle8364 heresy can't win over the Magisterium. No amount of preparation would ever be sufficient against it.
Respect to matt for putting his foot down 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Thank you for keeping it up Matt. As someone who's not Catholic, I really appreciate and trust that you really try to represent the current Catholic POV. And one of the reasons I trust you is because you're honest and care about free speech even when it seems your side is not as strongly represented in a debate.
He’s not attacking the authority of the church. He is making the case to reestablish it.
Speaking of German bishops: it would be awesome to See a debate about the "synodal way" on your channel maybe about the topic wether signs of time should be a source of revelation for the church and higher ranked than the magisterium (because this is what they state in their foundational manifesto and it is the source of all the evil things coming Out of it). I think you have some people who think like this in the USA as well or you can find German people from the ZdK or BDKJ (the German "catholic" youth) willing to discuss it. It is a really important topic
As a person who watches this channel in Germany: I really want to see this happen!
Appreciate the reasoning here Matt. For what it's worth, despite being rather progressive Atheists who disagree with the traditional Catholic position on many issues, we appreciate that we can come on your channel and have a fair and respectful debate.
I love your sense of balance Matt
It’s very helpful
Your topics and guests are very helpful to my faith
Cheers !
I would say--for whatever it's worth--if the debate was taken down it would discourage the atmosphere of true scholasticism. Debating Aristotle in the day of St. Thomas was a scandal of scandals, for instance. Taking the debate down because the controversy of the subject is a wound to scholarship. Truth can hurt and we need to accept that. I'm not a sedevacantist, but this debate gave some real food for thought on studying matters of faith and ecclesiology. Fostering study is a good thing...suppressing it--not so much.
As a Protestant, I’ve always enjoyed your content and it’s given me a newfound respect for Catholicism. Hosting this debate showed a level of openness that Christianity as a whole needs more of.
It wasn’t scandalous.
kind of noticed no one wants to debate marion apparition stating, "rome will lose the faith". how about the famous bishope fulton sheen, using catholic sources, stating an "ape" of the church will arise having external trappings of catholicism but internally no longer be catholic? would be fantastic debate discussing if we are already there. my suggestion would be bishop barron representing pachamama papa francis church vs bro. dimond representing position that we are already there.
Ok there
That was a fantastic debate, and I'm grateful you hosted it and kept it up.
If you believe brother Peter won the debate it's because the facts bear it so.... Please put brother Peter in front of Trent horn or anybody else you would like and have another debate, or another and another until you may be satisfied which you won't be because the facts prove sedivacantism is the correct position, since 1958 (John 23rd)
Which sedevacantism?
Matt, you are seriously awesome. The way you hold to your convictions is so admirable.
Everyone should be open minded enough to accept the truth and maybe rethink there ideas about what is actually true ..not what we would prefer to be true.
I still haven’t watched it. As a Protestant I don’t really know what to think of the papacy so I don’t want to confuse myself further with this sort of thing.
Wise man. Stay far away - it’s between two fringe “Catholics” debating the modern papacy. Watch Michael Lofton’s review if anything, but as a Protestant it will absolutely confuse you.
Honestly smart.
Would be of no benefit to someone outside the Church anyway. That would be like trying to follow a game of golf without knowing the rules
The reason you don't want to watch it is because you don't want it to change what you already think. Watch it to start to figure out the truth. That is why I watched it.
Then how will you ever find the truth? If it led you here, there might be something to it. Don't let Satan push you astray.
Hey Matt! I really appreciate your different discussions with various speakers. Also, when you post monologue videos like this they’re entertaining as well- I wonder if other folks would have the same interest in seeing more of this kind of content on your channel. Food for thought!
Entertainment is Not the point of this discussion.
If a debate is a scandal in the truest sense of the word and a person would lose their faith due to the possibility of an anti-Pope, that person already has a problem with their comprehension of the faith.
I didn’t think it was obvious at all that Dimond won, Cassman made some points that Dimond had no good answer to
I am not a sedevacantist, but Dimond did win the debate. He is very intelligent and a good debater.
My criticism is not that you had the debate but that you didn't get someone who was actually in full communion with the Church to debate Peter.
Happy you posted Reason and Theology review of the debate and some others as well. He does well to dispell the Sede's position and offer an authentic Catholic position.
Also don't take down the debate at all, I would just recommend you get Michael Lofton on to talk about the Magesterium (don't have to talk about the debate in particular) because there is a massive need for Catholics to have a sufficient view of the Magesterium because most Catholics do not.
Hear hear! The Logos Project, Jeremiah Bannister and Andrew Bartel also offered a great rebuttal of Dimond's errors 🔥
@@ZachCatholic 100% love all those guys
@@thelogosproject7 why make reply videos when you know they'll be open to debate?
Bro Peter could not be refuted because he speaks the absolute truth, please have him on again.
Appreciate your honesty Matt, your principles and your being humble enough to voice your regrets over certain elements of some debates or their follow ups. Very refreshing.
All things work for good for those that love God....
I agree. We learn from our mistakes. A failed debate has two aspects: 1. causes us to reevaluate our position (an intellectually honest and responsible thing to do) and 2. To better understand and articulate our position (on further reflection) the next time.
Even great debaters have a bad day and fail to counter or understand new avenues of attack or critique. I should mention I'm not Catholic but I appreciate the discussions. It's just to easy to ignore a debate gone wrong or play the game my side always wins every debate no matter what. How can we honestly contend if we aren't even honest with ourselves.
No sense in taking it down anyway. Many of us have copied it and will upload it if you delete it.
taking it down afterwards would only add to the scandal - it would imply that sedevacantists can't be refuted except by censorship.
Something ignorant NO supporters can’t see.
Good for you Matt! What a lot of people don’t seem to realise, is that without free-speech, and without content freely available to consider, the only thing people will definitely know is error. God bless!
just a couple of thoughts/opinions:
yeah, I remember that post-debate summation and it did make me cringe a bit tbh. The point of watching a debate -- esp a long one -- is not necessarily to watch your side crush the other (though we all root for that to a certain degree), but to listen carefully to two well-informed sides presenting their best cases for their sides. I'm sure there have been many who have been swayed by a silver tongued debater who holds the "wrong" side of the argument.
Also when you pit two viewpoints against each other, I think that you are inadvertently making the viewer infer that one side if correct (even if it isn't).
Keep up the good work of making us all use our brains!
You shouldn’t regret hosting this debate. You should instead host more such debates between Dimond and others (also invite Mario Derksen of the superb Novus Ordo Watch site to debate those who have yet to see the truth of the empty papal chair). It’s also praiseworthy of you to admit that Dimond won. This debate should cause you to seriously question your support of the entity now led by Jorge Bergoglio. It’s de fide (of faith) that the actual Catholic Church is indefectible. We’re divinely promised from Jesus Himself that hell shall never prevail over the actual Church (Mt. 16:18). But hell HAS manifestly prevailed over the entity founded at Vatican II and now led by Bergoglio. Therefore, this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church.
Best way to put it at the end.
@@collectiveconsciousness5314 What do you mean? Are you talking about hell having manifestly prevailed over the entity now led by Jorge, thereby proving that this entity cannot possibly be the actual Catholic Church?
@@redpillpharmacy6877 Yes, that. As hell has prevailed over it, it can't be the Church.
Never did think of it that way.
The reason why Peter Dimond won the debate is because Sedevacantism is the correct position.
Imagine thinking the church Jesus founded could be destroyed 🤡
then who should us Catholics follow?
@@therealmasterchief4644 What is Luke 18:8
God bless you for not taking the debate down.
Matt, I have not seen the debate. But I'll tell you, you are absolutely right not to take it down or to be intimidated by those who would center sensor another position. I applaud you for your moral strength.
I dont expect Fradd to take down the debate. I think he correct on this. But I do encourage him to have another debate between Dimond and a person who defends the Church and is not a SSPX supporter. Trent Horn or Michael Lofton would be great examples.
Doesn't Matt Fradd know that Michael Lofton is a problem? :)
In fact, a massive problem... for the lucrative industry of Papal Slanderers and dissenters 😉
I love problems. St. Francis de Sales is my favorite problem.
Michael Lofton causes more problems for people than they care to discuss..debate.uhh😏
I think it's excellent you link these responses, Is aw the Logos Project one and enjoyed it a lot, brought a good discussion.
THANK YOU! I have not watched this debate, but I will! I am a convert. In order to be a convert you must INTELLECTUALLY come to a place where you can accept a faith. Ultimately it must go much deeper than that; and I readily accept that there are mysteries and certain things which we simply will not be able to comprehend in this lifetime. There is nothing in Catholicism which to me is inconsistent with what I know to be true. That’s a very important place to start as a convert. I was brought up in a tradition which was NOT consistent and often made NO sense. I have family members and others who still, even after more than 20 years as a Catholic seek to argue me out of it. What sort of faith would it be if we couldn’t grapple with the tough questions or listen to other points of view?
So this vatican 2 catholic defenders wouldn't allow to call dimond as Bro. ? they forgot the spirit of vatican 2 council that called protestant as brothers and even the moslems not specifically the same but something like that.
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes lol.
I saw this debate when it first aired. You are correct in not taking it down. Trent Horn has done refuted Peter Diamond, and then Peter Diamond has refuted Trents Video. Peter Diamond has been around for a long time. What shocks me is that Trent Horn has not debated him directly , not to mention, not anyone else either from mainstream Catholic Apologetics . In my opiniona better match instead of Cassmen would of been Trent himself or Jimmy Akin. Is everyone afraid to debate Diamon ?
Diamond's refutation of Trent's video: th-cam.com/video/PS7qgmx8k0M/w-d-xo.html
" This Brother Dimond character "? I thought the use of those words was a bit disrespectful Mr. Fradd. I thought you spoke some bit loosely there if I'm honest. Fair play for holding the debate by the way. Respect.
Keep up the Conversations!! Debates are good.
I'm not a sedevacantist. Now we are more like Protestants by using melodrama to describe the debate as Scandalous. And by the way, even though I am not sedevacantist, I cannot find too much fault with Diamond's position, and he was just quoting the church fathers and why the recent popes were themselves scandalous, and I still love JP2 and Benedict - and they were not manifest heretics (but Francis is more than that). As for Trent Horn, I throw my hands up in the air because so many say he disproved Diamond whereas he did NOT. And it made perfect sense that he could not because he is so supportive and 'explain-ful' of pope Francis. Maybe it is I who is in denial that Trent's following is the Modernist 'church'. Sad. Btw, I follow Michael Matt, Church Militant, and Lifesitenews. I wonder if their followers would have said the same thing about Trent's VERY lame defense of Francis (which was half of his Diamond rebuttal video) while Rome is burning.
The debate should stay up, but I think you should also have someone on, preferably John Salza, to come on and give a proper refutation that Cassman failed to give
@@CatholicHusband I don't think he would be, because he actually knows their arguments, unlike Cassman who seemed blindsided by them
@YP Poe Source?
@@Seethi_C look up his name on their website
Good on you, for not buckling and being a man of integrity
Excellent nuanced explanation. Good to see intellectual honesty even when it isn't convenient. It will pay dividends in the long run.
For the many people confused by this debate, here is the response of a non-schismatic and obedient Catholic (i.e., Trent Horn): th-cam.com/video/ZDAd7Q1mZYg/w-d-xo.html
God bless you. Honestly, it is so sad that these people can't simply accept keeping the debate up. Imagine if an atheist and a Christian debated each other on an atheist's channel, and the Christian won, wouldn't we be upset if the atheist removed the video from their channel because it is "scandalous?" This feels like a double standard, and it feels like it tends toward cultish thinking (ie., "Anything which shows some issues with our worldview must be censored rather than being known and addressed")
The problem ultimately is that you had a SSPX adherent defending the Church from calumny. The SSPX can only sustain their position by agreeing with calumnies against the Church, so how could he be consistent in defending her?
Exactly. The exchange revealed the weakness of the SSPX position.
Our faith is not for entertainment purposes. Debates on matters of religion cannot be like a wrestling match or a court room drama. To reduce religion to a sport or a video game is not what we should be aiming for. We should remember 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour."
In addition, "... even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God, who proveth our hearts." 1 Thessalonians 2:4.
Our faith is not a trifling matter.
You need to keep the video because it does bring up some legitimate questions that need to be addressed. You also may not want to admit it but the reason it's scandalous is there may be some validity to the Sedevacantism. It could explain all the issues with the church since 1962.
The reason that Brother Dimond won is because his position is the correct one. Cassman's position was exposed as hypocritical because he couldn't defend it when Brother Dimond asked him what he believes by putting forth simple yes or no questions. Cassman knew that if he answered them "yes or no", his position would be exposed for being fraudulent. Which it is. The truth always wins in the end.
Yep, no excuse to fail 2+2=4 questions wrong.
Yes, leaving the debate up keeps the integrity of your debate hosting on Pints so good on that. One idea, if youtube allows, would be to add an intro that gave links to better arguments so viewership will know of better resources up front.
Good Job Mr. Fradd! Stick to your principles. I fully agree that we should not try and censor disputations. God bless!
Hey, TT, have you thought about doing rebuttal vids about what guys like Lofton and Salza have been saying about the Society? I haven't seen a lot of charitable interaction with what they have to say.