Images, Statues, Icons--a debate!

I'll be debating Turretinfan of Alpha and Omega Ministries on December the 2nd on a very important topic! For all those interested, stay tuned to the Legate home page or follow me on my Youtube page for more on the debate!

Debate in Texas on Marian Dogmas

Was Vatican I correct?

This debate was an interesting one! Was Vatican I Correct Regarding Papal Infallibility?

Over 2 hours of debating and intense cross ex!

It was great!

Click below to download the debate, absolutely free!

Was Vatican I correct regarding Papal Infallibility?

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!