Patrick Henry Omlor and silly argumentation

Florence "solemnly" decreed the form of consecration? No. Sedevacantists argue that? Silly? Yes and Yes! Refuted? Thoroughly.

Here's hoping the falsely called traditionalists can dig up better argumentation.

Watch this video analysis here!

Dimond Brothers and Debating

Robert Godfrey, who runs the Sedevacantist Printing Card Company in Corpus Christi, Texas has asked me why Peter Dimond pulled out of a future possible debate on the Validity of Vatican II against me.

I recently did a video on this very issue, but I thought it best to provide the images here as well. Mr. Dimond, after our debate on the New Mass, made a number of demands in order for a debate on Vatican II to happen. It is my conviction that Mr. Dimond put so many obstacles in the way of a future debate against me simply due to his awful performance in our previous debate on the New Mass. After that debate Mr. Dimond even went as far as to setting up a ridiculous amount of parameters in order for another debate to occur! Mr. Dimond's outrageous behavior led numerous Sedevacantists to APOLOGIZE for his behavior. As such, it seems that Mr. Dimond...










WOULD like to debate, but when it's "convenient" for him! Mr. Dimond also wants "SOLE YOUTUBE RIGHTS" to this future debate. He wants to be the ONLY one who can post it.

You think that's outrageous..I'm not done ;)











Keep watching...













What's the big DELETED that is circled there. Well, Mr. Dimond also says that I have to agree that if any comments I make in the debate that he deems NECESSARY to be "DELETED", then he gets the right to DELETE them from the debate!

Mr. Dimond doesn't want a debate. Mr. Dimond wants a puppet that he can manipulate to his own liking. After Mr. Dimond and the Monastery's numerous awful performances, we aren't surprised that they set up SO many OUTRAGEOUS demands. The Monastery KNOW that no one would accept such outrageous demands. As such, it's an easy way to avoid defending your position that has been refuted many times over already.

New Mass Debate MP3

Download the New Mass Debate below!

the Validity of the New Mass Debate

The following is a debate between Ken Bird, who aligns himself with the CMRI position and William Albrecht. Ken Bird is a Sedevacantist and takes the position that the New Mass is invalid. William Albrecht is a Catholic apologist and takes the position that the New Mass IS valid. It is recommended you download the Validity of the New Mass Debate with Dimond vs. Albrecht if you haven't heard this debate first. That was the debate that caused Peter Dimond to inadvertently reject statements from Trent and the Church Fathers! This debate takes a completely different course and is a more fruitful-charitable dialogue. To download the complete debate right click and save the files below.

Right click to download the debate on this same topic vs. Peter Dimond below.

Peter Dimond vs. William Albrecht on the Validity of the Novus Ordo Missae MP3!

Right click to save the debate vs. Ken Bird on the Validity of the New Mass below!

Opening Speeches

Debate Section II

Debate Section III

Debate Section IV

Debate Section V

Debate Section VI

Debate Section VII

Debate Section VIII

Debate Section IX

Ken's Closing Statements

William's Closing Statements

Debating the Validity of the New Mass-again!

This past Saturday I debated Ken Bird on the validity of the New Mass once again. The MP3 audio is edited and ready to be released. It will be out by Monday evening, with an Afterthoughts also. The debate was very interesting and I think it described just how bankrupt the Sedevacantist position really is. Ken Bird was a true gentleman. Ken Bird attends a CMRI service and aligns themselves with them more than with the mindset of the Dimonds. Both groups are radical Sedevacantists--but the Dimonds rely on scare tactics and pejorative argumentation rather than fruitful charitable dialogue. Ken seemed to have misunderstood many points. In our examination of the debate we will see how Ken's adoption of Patrick Omlor's flawed theology has lead him down a murky path. A number of fallacious arguments Ken put forth(not his own fault wholly) are the outrageous claim that Florence "infallibly" defined the consecration formula. Ken also put forth arguments in regards to the UNION of the Faithful, arguments that were rebutted and left Ken with little else to say in regards to this. As evinced once more, the falsely called traditionalists were unable to deal with the Patristic sources. In my previous debate against Peter Dimond, Peter resorted to rejecting Church Father quotations as SPURIOUS since it was so damaging to his position!

Peter Dimond rejects the Fathers and Trent's definitions!

This time around Ken didn't reject the Fathers, but he failed to deal with them completely! What still stands is the peculiar little tradition that stems from the APOSTOLIC FATHERS-that the transubstantiation is brought about by 'THIS IS MY BODY' and 'THIS IS MY BLOOD' or a like wise affirmation of such a reality being put forth. These arguments don't get rebutted by Ken because it's impossible for a Sedevacantist who holds to the Invalidity of the New Mass to deal with the Patristic sources. The debate ranges at around 4 hours and covers a great deal of topics!

Ken Bird and I have agreed to do a number of debates in the near future as well!

Our next few debates will be announced soon!

GOD BLESS you!

Turretinfan vs. Francis Turretin

In our recent debate on Sola Scriptura(LEFT CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL DEBATE in MP3 Format! The Sola Scriptura Debate here!), Turretinfan found himself in a bind. When cross examined on whether or not Francis Turretin(the real Turretin) was not in UNITY with Turretinfan on the topic of Mary remaining a perpetual virgin throughout her life, Turretinfan scrambled so much so that he was forced(in order to not answer in the affirmative that Sola Scriptura has caused disunity between him and his hero) to say that Francis Turretin's views on Mary's Perpetual Virginity were taken from Tradition and NOT from Scripture! That's interesting. A GREAT Reformer came to a conclusion based on Sacred Tradition and NOT upon the Scriptures themselves? That makes for an INTERESTING case against Sola Scriptura in and of itself. But what interests us even more is that Turretinfan was wrong about Francis Turretin. When Francis Turretin points out how the EARLY Church believed Mary remained a perpetual virgin. he is referencing the early Fathers as a whole(not just Jerome as Tfan said). Hence he says that it is, "..piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church" It is TRUE that Francis Turretin's final conclusion on this view is NOT EXPRESSLY from Scripture. But what interests us even more is that Francis Turretin's DEFENSE of the arguments levied against Mary having LOST her virginity is a defense completely relying on Scripture! Francis Turretin relies on SOLA SCRIPTURA in his refutation of the arguments put forth to "disprove" Mary had remained a virgin her whole life. In fact, Francis Turretin uses no less than 10 verses of Sacred Scripture to show the folly of those that attempt to prove Mary lost her virginity. Turretinfan could not and WOULD not affirm that Sola Scriptura had caused DISUNITY and DIVISION amongst himself and his hero--the REAL Turretin--on this issue. But the proof is there for everyone to see. Read below!



“This is not expressly declared in Scripture, but is yet piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church. Thus it is probable that the womb in which our Savior received the auspices of life (whence he entered into this world, as from a temple) was so consecrated and sanctified by so great a guest that she always remained untouched by man; nor did Joseph ever cohabit with her. Hence Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites (so-called because they were opponents of [antidikoi] Mary)are deservedly rebuked by the fathers for denying that Mary was always a virgin (aei Parthenon). They held that she cohabited with Joseph after delivery; yea, also bore children from him. As Augustine remarks, they rely on the shallowest arguments, i.e., because Christ is called the ‘firstborn’ of Mary (cf. De Haeresibus 56, 84 [PL 42.40, 46]). For as Jerome well remarks, she was so called because no one was begotten before him, not because there was another after him. Hence among lawyers: ‘He is the first whom no one precedes; he is last, whom no one follows.’ The Hebrews were accustomed to call the firstborn also only begotten; Israel is called ‘the first-born of God’ (Ex 4:22), although the only people chosen of God. Thus ‘the firstborn’ is said to be ‘holy unto God’ (Ex 13:2), who first opened the womb, whether others followed or not. Otherwise the firstborn would not have to be redeemed until after another offspring had been procreated (the law shows this to be false because it commands it to be redeemed a month after birth, Num. 18:16). Not more solidly have they been able to elicit this from the fact that in the New Testament certain ones are called ‘the brothers of Christ.’ It is common in Scripture not only for one’s own and full brothers by nature to be designated by this name, but also blood relatives and cousins (as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban). Thus James and Joses, Simon and Judas are called brothers of Christ (Mt. 13:55) by a relation of blood. For Mary (who is called their mother by Matthew and Mark) is called by John the sister of the Lord’s mother. However what is said in Jn. 7:5 that ‘neither did his brethren believe him’ must be understood of more remote blood relations. Nor is it derived better from this-that Joseph is said ‘not to have known Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn son’ (Mt. 1:25). The particles ‘till” and ‘even unto’ are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e., they so connote the preceding time, concerning which there might be a doubt or which it was of the highest importance to know, as not to have a reference to the future-cf. Gen 28:15; Pss 122:2; 110:1; Mt.28:20, etc.). Thus is shown what was done by Joseph before the nativity of Christ (to wit, that he abstained form her); but it does not imply that he lived with her in any other way postpartum. When therefore she is said to have been found with child ‘before they came together’ (prin e synelthein autous), preceding copulation is denied, but not subsequent affirmed. Although copulation had not take place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith, but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring.” Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 345-346.

I recommend anyone that has some cash to spare to get this set of the real Turretin. It's worth a browse at the least.

http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Elenctic-Theology-vol-set/dp/0875524567/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271138499&sr=8-1





















GOD BLESS!

the SOLA SCRIPTURA Debate!

Turretinfan vs. William Albrecht

Moderator: Lane Chaplin

Debate today!

Does Sola Scriptura Cause Division and Disunity within the Christian Body?

I will be debating Turretinfan this day on this very important topic. Hopefully we'll have the mp3 audio done real fast. I think this is a very interesting topic. I have a few more upcoming debates that I'll try and find the time to announce real soon. I'll also be appearing on a Mexican radio show in two weeks in a talk about Mary! Pray for myself and for all the Christ lovers out there. GOD BLESS!