Tony is becoming quite the heretic basher, and doing so nicely. He wrote this short book, which is quite entertaining. I know it intimately as he emailed me most of the correspondence as a vetting process before taking my suggestion of putting into book format. If you want to see how deceptive fake “priests” are, this is definitely a good read.
More recently, Tony came across yet another impostor, liar and deceiver, who tried to do a “takedown” of Peter Dimond’s debate with an SSPX heretic.
The original debate was, as I think Vox once described a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens “Frog meets train”.
With Peter Dimond being the train. And yes, the train was fine.
This character; Trent Horn, who has all the charisma of a drone reading a teleprompt, tries to pretend he can derail the train. He cannot, and he does not, and Tony took the time to list just the nonsense Trent Horn says about Catholicism in this video, meant to support the fake, satanic infested Bergoglian “Church” of the Novus Orco.
Here are tony’s notes for just the first 25 minutes of the video, enjoy.
2:00 -> He says that there are no Bishops… wrong because there are Sede Bishops and Bishops can ordain other Bishops.
06:30 -> Contradiction: T. admits that there can be an interregnum (when there is no visible head) and then says that The Church teaches that there will always be a visible head (which it doesn’t say and can’t because there are times of interregnum when there is no visible head)
Also, Sedevacantism doesn’t mean that the office of the Pope has finally ended. The office still exists and The Church still retains the power to elect another Pope, we just don’t have one at present and might not for a while.
9:30 -> Messy interpretation juggling about Bible and prophecies. Still, the Bible does predict a great apostasy.
12:00 -> Red-Herring/Conflation: He mentions past heretical Bishops and then argues that this didn’t mean that The Church defected, but having some heretical clergy is not the same as having a Church that consistently and publicly teaches heresy in councils, liturgy and catechisms!
16:00 -> Very Subtle Argument/Misdirection here…
T. talks about the “sin” of heresy but admits that Popes lose their Papacy if they commit the crime of heresy. Then he argues that the sin of heresy is only private and that the crime is only a crime if it is concluded by a trial. He also argues that priests who mortally sin still retain their Orders (which is true).
The problem is that whether we call it the “sin” or the “crime” The Church teaches that public, manifest heretics are automatically excommunicated (Ispo-Facto) without any public declaration (Canon 188.4)!
The subtle deception results from the fact that it is indeed true that sinful priests or even excommunicated priests retain their orders but, of course, they lose ALL authority!
Even the Eastern Orthodox still have valid orders but they can’t become Popes.
Now, T. also says that we can’t ever judge when someone has become a public, manifest heretic and so, the logic goes something like this…
If a priest walks into a catholic church and sacrifices a goat on the alter in the name of Satan, no one can really tell whether that priest is a public heretic or not. And so, the laity should patiently wait while he does his ritual and then go to receive the sacraments from him. After all, its only been 10 minutes and no trials have been had yet and so, who are we to say if that is heresy or not?
23:00 -> Bergoglio isn’t in communion with Peter because he contradicts papal teaching and the Catholic faith.
24:00 -> Conflation: He equates “small” with “invisible”. Just because the Church is “small” doesn’t mean it is “invisible”. It wasn’t “invisible” when it only consisted of 12 Apostles and some Holy Women.
24:00 -> Conflation: He says that “If heretics cannot become Pope, therefore no converts can.” WRONG! Converts are not heretics! That’s why they’re converts. They have recanted their heresy and now hold the Catholic faith. This does not apply to heretics, the anti-Popes or their clergy.
24:00 -> Lie: He claims that Cum-Ex Apostolatus Officio was “abrogated” by the 1917 code… No it wasn’t! Its IN the Code!
I will only add that the only fault I find with Peter Dimond’s position is that he (erroneously) does not consider baptism of desire and baptism of blood ads valid, which leads him to essentially not recognise any valid priests or bishops. He is clearly in error on this because he apparently follows the ideas of one Leonard Feeney. But Feeney was excommunicated by Pious XII in 1953, who, of course was the last valid Pope in current times, as we have not had one since then. So, following the ideas of an excommunicated heretic, makes you a heretic in turn, which, sadly, is what Peter Dimond is, purely on this one point, because as far as I have seen from the rest of his site, he is otherwise rigorously correct. As far as I have seen anyway, his site is extensive and I have quoted him in various places and ways when his arguments are correct, which they more often than not are, as well as exhaustive, but I have certainly not perused the entirety of his voluminous works, so I can only attest to those things I have linked or quoted in the past (always giving attribution).
Peter Dimond is a heretic by fault of wanting to be too zealous and thus rejecting a truth that the church has always held, that Baptism of desire and of blood are valid baptisms (rare though they are). But he is otherwise correct on most positions I have seen him take regarding Catholicism. If Dimond corrects this one error he would likely be a model Catholic.
Trent Horn is not correct on anything and he’d have to overhaul his entire thought process to even begin to become a Catholic.
And lastly, on a personal note of pride, while I am certainly not Tony’s dad, I am old enough to be, and I have seen him grow as a Catholic and a man in the few years I have known him. He has helped me very much here on the farm, at personal cost to himself, while being generous and constant in his support of both myself and my family as well as the church. He is a better Catholic than I am in many ways and he continues to improve as he ages, and he is not yet 30. It does make me proud to see how far he has come in such a short time, and I am excited to see what he will create of his life in the years to come.
His takedown of this deceiver is personally satisfying as I can see our conversations have matured and now, he is striking out on his own, taking heretic scalps as he goes, it’s enough to make a man proud. Godspeed Tony.
Tags: the kurgan, Tony lowe
