Monologue With a Madman

Monologue with a Madman
November 8, 2011 | 3 Comments
Some months back, I received a telephone call from a sedevacantist madman who challenged me to a debate on whether Pope Benedict XVI is the pope. This individual should know that debates are not the way we do our apostolate. I have nothing against debating, but we engage in other apostolates that take up our time, I believe, more profitably: publishing, street evangelism, our school, night classes here at the Center, putting on conferences, various youth apostolates, public outreach to spread the traditional Mass, and giving talks on a Catholic America.
Besides, I am of the opinion that debating the undebatable is not a prudent thing. Debating whether the pope is the pope is like debating the wetness of water, the heat of the sun, or the fourness of two plus two.
Scripture admonishes us to “Talk not much with a fool, and go not with him that hath no sense” (Ecclus. 22:14). This man fits the description.
But some people, including my madman, can’t take no for an answer. A few days after the initial call, I received a menacing telephone message, in Madman’s familiar voice, breathing out threatenings. I was soon to undergo a cyber attack, and the vastly superior Alexa ratings of this muscled web warrior would be marshaled forth against me.
Well, the great denunciation finally came. Thus spake Madman: Brother André and his associates at Saint Benedict Center are apostate novus-ordo heretics who believe Muslims worship the true God and reject no salvation outside the Church. Oh, yes, and they’re going to hell, too.
Here are some brief responses:
Brother André Marie believe that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. Really? No, actually, I don’t. This past January, I authored a piece called That We May Know the True God, in which I made it clear that those who do not believe in the Trinity do not believe in God. With St. Thomas, I argued that “unbelievers” do not believe in God, either. The word “unbeliever” is used by St. Thomas to include heretics as well as Jews and pagans, which would include Muslims in the medieval theological lexicon.
I am an “apostate.” Madman called me this all through his jeremiad. What is an apostate? Let us look at Canon Law. It would do no good to quote the 1983 Code of Canon Law on the sin of apostasy, since this code was promulgated by “Antipope” John Paul II, so I will quote instead the 1917 Code:
1325. § 2. Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.
The pertinent passage is italicized, and means: “[If, after the reception of baptism, one] withdraws entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate.” Note, the Church does not regard heretics or schismatics as apostates. They are being distinguished here, as the heretic — and presumably the schismatic — are those nomen retinens christianum (retaining the christian name), whereas apostasy entails a complete withdrawal from the Christian Faith. But, just because Brother André believes in “Antipope” Benedict XVI, he’s an “apostate.” Even by sedevacantist standards, this is lunacy.
We don’t believe there is no salvation outside the Church. That’s right! You heard it here, folks. By Madman’s logic, a non-sedevacantist can’t believe in this dogma. It would, of course, be useless for me to point out to Madman that Saint Benedict Center has a long history of defending extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Madman’s theology is like the science of “global warming.” No matter what, all the data — no matter how contradictory of the position — proves it.
We are novus-ordo Catholics. The novus ordo (new order) refers to Pope Paul VI’s new order of Mass. Used as an adjective, the word novus-ordo is a fairly fluid term employed by traditionalists to describe people, places, and things associated with the new rite. For some sedevacantists, all non-sedevacantists are novus-ordo Catholics. Since I believe in the Roman pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, Madman calls me novus-ordo. We don’t have the new Mass in our chapel, don’t frequent it elsewhere, and do worship in the traditional rites, but we are nonetheless novus-ordo.
Madman is accused by some of his popeless fellow travelers of being novus-ordo, since he regularly attends the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of a priest who is in communion with Pope Benedict XVI. He even defends this practice with great verve on his web site.
The pharisaical tendency of the sedevacantist not to touch anything rendered unclean by the papacy has given rise to the phenomenon of the “home aloner,” that is, the person who proves his piety by never going to Mass, since all priests are either heretics, schismatics, or otherwise nefarious persons that holy people must shun. While many of Madman’s beliefs would make him a home aloner, he chooses instead to receive the sacraments habitually from a novus-ordo priest, whom he calls a heretic on his web site.
But guilt by association doesn’t apply to Madman; it only applies to his enemies, like me.
And by the way, he also accuses me of being a hypocrite.
Madman said many other things, too, for he is garrulous in the extreme, but the main highlights (or lowlights, as it were) have been addressed.
Please join me in offering an Ave for this man, his associates, and the poor people they mislead. “This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:28).
In honor of the Five Wounds of Christ, I will conclude with five reasons why I am not a sedevacantist:
1. The papacy is the principle of the Church’s unity and visibility. This is according to Vatican I. It is dogmatic. The half-century of a popeless “church” that the sedevacantists imagine reduces the pontifical monarchy that is Christ’s Church to a republican confederacy of mutually-loathing sedevacantist bishops, the priests attached to them, and the hapless faithful who attend their various chapels. These poor people are frequently in doubt about which priest is really a priest or which bishop is really a bishop, who might be a heretic, or who an infiltrator. For this reason, many sedevacantist clergy are conditionally re-ordained numerous times. This is madness, not Catholicism.
2. All of the proofs for sedevacantism presume that we can judge the interior dispositions of the supreme pontiff. If he says something heretical, he must be a formal heretic, automatically self-excommunicated and therefore bereft of the supreme pontificate. But this judging of the interior forum is not permitted to Catholics. And this notion that the subject judges the superior — a democratic, egalitarian, and Protestant, idea — is not at all Catholic. Nemo judicat primam sedem. No man judges the first see.
3. Sedevacantism is gnostic. It is about a decade newer than Vatican II. This means that the great tragedy of the Church’s decapitation was kept a secret for ten years. Every cardinal, bishop, priest, religious, and layman in the world gave adherence to an anti-pope, until someone came along and spotted that the emperor was wearing no clothes. Only, what was obvious to that someone was not obvious to the entire Catholic world. This is gnosticism, not Christianity.
4. Sedevacantism presents an unsolvable dilemma. Without a functioning hierarchy, the Church will never be able to choose a new pope. The present hierarchy of the Church is no hierarchy at all to the sedevacantist, but a gathering of non-bishops appointed by anti-popes. Whence, then, comes a valid pope? Some sedevacantists, seeing the obvious problem here, have opted to put on their own conclaves and produce their own anti-popes. This solves the frying-pan problem by leaping into the fire, and makes the whole thing appear as silly as it really is. Other sedevacantists, not satisfied with this solution, frankly admit they have no answer to how we will get a true pope — but it will happen. Like the fellow who couldn’t define pornography, they say they will know an authentic papacy when they see it. And this shows their ultimate folly, pride, and conceit: they have constituted themselves judges of the supreme pontiff. Now that they have taken upon themselves this weighty responsibility, they must judge every pretender to the Petrine Throne. But, if a man stepped forward claiming to be Pope — claiming to be the real one who would set things right, because he agrees with everything the sedevacantists say — how will they know he is the one? Signs and wonders? The devil can produce those, and the Magisterium judges authentic miracles from preternatural mischief. You need a pope for that. The dog is chasing his tail. And regardless of what might be the criteria by which the true pope manifests himself, what if all the sedevacantists don’t agree that this particular candidate is the real Vicar of Christ? Having cast off the monarchy of the pope, they now exercise the “tyranny of the masses” some call democracy. This is Protestantism, not Catholicism.

5. By their behavior, sedevacantists like Madman frequently prove, in an empirical way, what we know from theology: that the sin of schism is a sin against charity. They do this by their seething anger, outlandish peevishness, and adolescent trash talk resembling that of a professional wrestler.
From anger and hatred and all ill will, O Lord, deliver us!

http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2011/11/08/monologue-with-a-madman/#comments

Wow, good find Otremer. Pretty good five points. The only thing I think is lame is Brother Andre's claim that they "don´t do apostolate by debating" or they "don't have time." Most people who the Dimonds challenge to a debate try to get out of it in this way, as did Fr. Harrison recently...I "don't have time".

And to say that it is not part of their apostolate...well I remember the old Saint Benedict Center website was chalk full of debates with Protestants. Why the sudden change? While I do think the St. Benedict Center's kinder gentler approach is working (hence their approval in local diocese), the Dimonds (really the main Feeneyite sedevacantists out ther) are taking Catholics into sedevacantism who are the same Catholics that, if the Dimonds didn't exist, would be supporters of the Saint Benedict Center. I mean if a celibate group of men who have more time, library resources, philosophical and theological training, knowledge of Latin, do not debate the Dimonds then who will? I mean I thought one of the points of following the celibate life was to be able to dedicate oneself to things that the average lay Catholic simply does not have time for. So, Brother Andre, if you are reading this...I am only saying this in charity to a religious order which I think is one of the best in the Catholic Church. I don't mean to cause division or to talk against the St. Benedict Center. I just think that debating and winning against the Dimonds (and really preparing well for it, rather then the slipshod job that Vin Lewis did) would be more productive than traveling to give a conference in a church basement to a handful of faithful. Just my opinion.

At the same time, in a debate the one who asks the questions is the one who controls the debate (as well as the one doing the recording) so usually the Dimonds call people up with a barrage of questions putting the other person on the defensive.

They do point out a lot of bad stuff going on with the post-Vatican II Popes but then when someone asks them where we are going to get the next Pope from their only responses is to refer to the feeling of despair that Catholics had during the Great Western Schism. This is hardly an answer...the truth is....they don't know. Through sophistry they are able to make this HUGE point, which touches on the visibility and authority in the Church to be a minor point. It's a pretty big point. In fact, it is the sedevacantists biggest flaw, but it never gets discusses because people like the Dimonds are trained in debate techniques.

I mean the practical question is.....if the Dimonds are right....who governs the Church in practical matters now. Where are Catholics to get married? Where are Catholics to go if they think their marriage was invalid? How do Catholics get confirmed? Of course the Dimonds would say this is not an issue at all because the Japanese kept the faith for hundreds of years without priests or something.

Br. Andre is a pathetic coward, who weaseled out of a debate challenge by hanging up the phone within two minutes of a conversation. The reason why he hung up the phone is because his false, heretical, deplorable position on the sedevacantist issue would be annihilated. He would rather hide behind his key board, and spill out his piteous arguments that have already been dealt with a long time ago rather than man up and give a one on one live debate to a well-known traditional Catholic who he feels is leading many souls astray. After all, Br. Andre publicly requests speaking engagements, and he has said that he would essentially go anywhere to speak to small groups of people about the "Catholic faith." He even said "I can travel virtually anywhere." Br. Peter presented him with an opportunity to address a large amount of people on the telephone in his own private location and debate the issue of sedevacantism, which he has publicly condemned in written articles and considers to be schismatic, and what does he do? He hangs up the phone, refuses a debate challenge where he could get his message across to a much larger group of people, and then calls Br. Peter a “madman” in his aforementioned article. Br. Andre professes to be able to speak to people about the "Catholic faith" but he will not debate the “madman” and try converting these people back into his “Church.” Typical actions of a blind spiritual fool.

Br. Andre results in calling Catholics madmen because he has nothing else to say, because he cannot defend his position in a live debate with Br Peter, because he is a coward who does not have the truth on his side like all the rest of these people who flee the scene at the offering of a debate challenge.

These people are truly useless, they publish articles condemning the sedevacantist position but when confronted with a live one on one debate challenge on the issue, what do they do? They run, run with their tail tucked between their legs. They are pitiful.

How can a true Catholic defend a usurper who puts Our Divine Savior Jesus Christ on a par with Lucifer? Who acts like His dogmas do not exist? Who teaches that Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith are not necessary for salvation etc. etc. etc...?

It takes us back to this prophecy made by Our Lord: Luke 18:8- “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on Earth?”

Check out the following link for more information on the matter:

https://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1#p/u/13/xFZXru6covA

Would you be able to address any of the 5 points that Brother Andre raises?

Sedevacantists are generally so uncharitable that no one takes them seriously. By Brother Andre calling them madmen he is just kind of doing what they do every day.


Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up;
1 Corinthians 13:4


The Dimonds are not patient nor are they kind. They issue a barrage of arguments and if people do not convert on the spot then they are "of bad will".

I'll have to listen to the whole Dimond Brother youtube video later, and then re-read what Br. Andre wrote. Should be interesting.

I just don't argue with Sedes because it's tedious and they're always, always, always on their high horse.

I don't have time for that either.

RashaLampa wrote:Sedevacantists are generally so uncharitable that no one takes them seriously. By Brother Andre calling them madmen he is just kind of doing what they do every day.


Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up;
1 Corinthians 13:4


The Dimonds are not patient nor are they kind. They issue a barrage of arguments and if people do not convert on the spot then they are "of bad will".

I agree Rasha. Bro Andre is being vendictive in his choice of adjectives and showing himself culpable of the lack of charity he condemns in bro Peter Dimond. He would serve the cause better if he were to take their points one by one and give his rebuttal. Compare this with Fr. Gordon's (FSSP) impromtu debate with Bro Peter Dimond. No matter weather one agrees or disagrees with his (Fr. Gordon's) replies, he comes out of the exchange with integrity in tact.

Here's the link.

https://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1#p/u/6/SFmkKxwWNSg

RashaLampa wrote:

Would you be able to address any of the 5 points that Brother Andre raises?

I probably would be able to address the five points that Br. Andre has made, but then again, who would listen? I think I would be wasting my time; however, the Dimond brothers have addressed those points many times before on their website, in their books, in their DVDs, and in their videos on their YouTube channel. I myself find their information to be extremely informative and convincing based on the dogmatic teachings of the Church, the teachings of the saints and doctors of the Church, which goes against that which these men have been teaching for years.

I would say Br. Andre’s position, your position, and most people that post on this forum, either believe Benedict XVI etc. has not taught heresy or heretics can hold office in the Church, based on my understanding of Catholic teaching, that position is not tenable after seeing and understanding all the facts.

RashaLampa wrote:

Sedevacantists are generally so uncharitable that no one takes them seriously. By Brother Andre calling them madmen he is just kind of doing what they do every day.


Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up;
1 Corinthians 13:4


The Dimonds are not patient nor are they kind. They issue a barrage of arguments and if people do not convert on the spot then they are "of bad will".

I think the reason why most people do not take traditional Catholics seriously is because they despise the truth, because they themselves are not charitable. However I do agree with you on one point, br. Peter Dimond can be a bit impatient at times when dealing with certain people on the phone, which is his own problem that he will have to deal with. We all have our own faults which we must try and fix in order to become perfect, as Our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect. The fact that Br. Peter can be, at times, impatient with some people does not mean that the information and material which the monks’ at Most Holy Family Monastery produces and provides to people is not true. They are patient in other ways however, for example, their reading through probably hundreds if not thousands of Catholic and non-Catholic books, their reading through all the councils of the Church, their reading through the many encyclical letters of the popes in order to expose the errors of Vatican II and of the post conciliar claimants to the papacy and in order to instructed poor souls who have been led astray by the modern error. It is also a very charitable and kind thing to do, to give up the world and devote your entire life to Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith out of one’s own free will, while at the same time being attacked by people left, right and center.

Fatima for our times wrote:

Br. Andre is a pathetic coward, who weaseled out of a debate challenge by hanging up the phone within two minutes of a conversation. The reason why he hung up the phone is because his false, heretical, deplorable position on the sedevacantist issue would be annihilated. He would rather hide behind his key board, and spill out his piteous arguments that have already been dealt with a long time ago rather than man up and give a one on one live debate to a well-known traditional Catholic who he feels is leading many souls astray. After all, Br. Andre publicly requests speaking engagements, and he has said that he would essentially go anywhere to speak to small groups of people about the "Catholic faith." He even said "I can travel virtually anywhere." Br. Peter presented him with an opportunity to address a large amount of people on the telephone in his own private location and debate the issue of sedevacantism, which he has publicly condemned in written articles and considers to be schismatic, and what does he do? He hangs up the phone, refuses a debate challenge where he could get his message across to a much larger group of people, and then calls Br. Peter a “madman” in his aforementioned article. Br. Andre professes to be able to speak to people about the "Catholic faith" but he will not debate the “madman” and try converting these people back into his “Church.” Typical actions of a blind spiritual fool.

Even though what I have stated above about Br. Andre does seem a bit out there and seems to be uncharitable, it is true, for the reasons I have stated. I could have worded a few things differently and maybe calmed down a bit before I went off on my rant after reading the word “madman” but I think I got my point across quite clearly.

Also, it is every Catholics duty today to expose the false teachings and condemned actions of Benedict XVI, John Paul II etc. even if a person believes them to be true popes. Unfortunately that is not the case today, most people who are aware of the errors and who understand the facts, who claim to be Catholic, do not do so; instead of doing what’s right, puffed up in their own pride, they defend the workers of iniquity rather than expose them.