That wily Fr. Cekada.
Stonewall: "Yep, Trust TOFP!"
I look forward to the day we can make this "trustless" when 100% proven. It would be like the innovation of bitcoin, creating "trustless money" ... "trustless theology", or something like that. At least we would all know which "camp" is correct as to which is Catholic, no more "Church Courtyard" discussions. Right now there's some solid proofs but a bunch of noise and fog to obscure things temporarily.
:30 "post-v2 popes cannot be popes because of public heresy"
Crucially there is still a lack of precision here about if this heresy was pre-election heresy. Our best pro-sede-side "enthusiasts" will work on this though.
3:30 "Mr. Siscoe has committed a flub here akin to a first-year seminarian"
8:30 "There are other errors in Mr. Siscoe's article: egregious, dishonest, and [couldnt hear?] reticent of protestantism"
bah I think these jabs are unnecessary, can we just dispassionately refute the errors (this goes for both sides)
Only other thing to note is the Pistrina blog has been hammering SGG's alleged errors in latin for a while now, though the video looks ok (I haven't looked in to all this to confirm).
Relevant youtube comments discussion:
Richard Ross1 day ago
I'm afraid you misinterpreted what Mr. Siscoe wrote. He did not present the objection of Bellarmine as being Bellarmine's own opinion. This is evident if you read the very next sentence where he explains how Bellarmine REFUTED the objection. Here the sentence that follows: "Bellarmine goes on to defend Pope Celestine from the accusation of heresy by essentially arguing that the matter had not yet been solemnly defined (“the whole matter was still being thought out”) and by noting that Celestine did not intend for his erroneous judgment to be an ex-cathedra definition (he “responded with what seemed more probable”).
Scott Richesson1 day ago (edited)
Richard Ross I don't think so. Siscoe leads the quoted passage with, "Commenting on the case of Celestine and the above citations specifically, Bellarmine wrote:"
Rev. Anthony Cekada
Rev. Anthony Cekada21 hours ago
Thanks for your comment. Mr. Richesson is right, though: Mr. Siscoe's introductory sentence leaves a clear impression that what follows is Bellarmine talking. Another priestly colleague of mine arrived at the same conclusion independently. If Mr. Siscoe's fuzzy writing in controversies doesn't convey what he actually means, I can't be expected to get out a Rosetta Stone to decipher him.
Richard Ross5 hours ago
If you read Siscoe's second article on the case of Celestin, in response to Father Kramer, it is clear that I was right. He provided a long quote from Bellarmine refuting the accusations of heresy leveled against Celestine. This leaves no doubt that he did not present the objection Bellarmine provided as if it was Bellarmine's one opinion. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3067-robert-siscoe-responds-to-fr-kramer-concerning-the-case-of-celestine-iii
Comment on this: Lack of precision is leading to pushing certain points and is exploited for plausible deniability. It's ambiguous or paradoxical phrases like "have you stopped beating your wife" or "this statement is false" etc. that are prolonging confusions. Establishment of clarity = clear analysis = end of objections. Hopefully we can keep moving things along.