Author Topic: the Dimonds monastery (Read 7770 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #45 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:07:03 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Matthew
The fact of the matter is, I could write a book on "Salvation" and though I'm not specially educated on the matter and would only be giving my fallible opinions on the matter, it would be every bit as valuable and insightful as this book by the Dimonds.

If you ever do write a book on salvation, I for one would read it.

Matthew would know better than to write books on theology without the approval of the Church. These characters SBC, Dimonds and Ibranyi do not know better and are leading Catholics outside the Church into heresy and schism!

When the Church reforms, and God blesses us with a Pope, I am not sure that these hardened Dimondites and Feeneyites will repent and believe Baptism of Desire and Blood. They will probably keep their heresy, continue to promote it, and that will lead to their excommunications.

When you read Church history, have you ever wondered how sects were formed? I used to wonder when I was a child, "how could a Catholic be so stupid to fall for the lies of the heretics?" Now, as a man, I am watching it live for all to see.

I am disgusted by the obstinacy of so many on here to the doctrinal teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire and Blood. This heresy, although decades old has been gaining steam in recent years, thanks to the Dimonds, and sad to say, I fear that those ensnared in it, except by a special grace may not come out of it.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #46 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:12:51 PM »

This is the one issue where those who believe the infallible teachings of the Church are called heretics by those who reject them, like Ambrose here.

Ambrose · « **Reply #47 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:29:54 PM »

Quote from: Guest

This is the one issue where those who believe the infallible teachings of the Church are called heretics by those who reject them, like Ambrose here.

I believe all of those infallible teachings, and none of them teach against Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Baptism of Desire is de fide, no matter how much these characters deny it. It is heresy to deny it.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #48 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:53:22 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Guest
This is the one issue where those who believe the infallible teachings of the Church are called heretics by those who reject them, like Ambrose here.

I believe all of those infallible teachings, and none of them teach against Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Baptism of Desire is de fide, no matter how much these characters deny it. It is heresy to deny it.

You say you do but it is not true. You do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation because you believe people are saved without baptism.

SJB · « **Reply #49 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:58:26 PM »

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

Quote from: Matthew

The fact of the matter is, I could write a book on "Salvation" and though I'm not specially educated on the matter and would only be giving my fallible opinions on the matter, it would be every bit as valuable and insightful as this book by the Dimonds.

They might be able to write convincingly, etc. but when it comes right down to it they aren't any better equipped to teach Catholicism than any of us.

I always thought it was stupid how protestants bother going to church -- there's no sacrifice, and the "pastor" is just a married man (or woman) like themselves. Who cares what this guy thinks about Scripture? I can interpret Scripture for myself, and it's just as valid! That would be my thinking if I were protestant.

The Dimond brothers didn't study Theology in the Angelicuм in Rome, nor do they hold any PhDs in anything. Why do so many Catholics follow them like desperate sheep? There are much better shepherds out there!

PhD's or no, the Dimond's have demonstrated their knowledge. They are willing to debate learned opponents (e.g. Robert Sungenis) and have won convincingly every single time.

Since you (and many others) evidently feel strongly that the Dimond's are wrong on so many issues, and if, as you claim, you are just as knowledgeable as they are, prove them wrong in debate. As far as I can tell much of what they say is irrefutable, which is why people are quite content to take shots at the Dimond's from a distance, as on this forum, but won't attempt to take them on in a fair and equal setting.

Well, you're both mistaken. The point is that they do not accept the teaching of the Church except where they agree with it. Their error is a "definitions only" mentality and total self-reliance on all matters theological.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #50 on:** January 21, 2014, 08:38:18 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Guest
[

When the Church reforms, and God blesses us with a Pope, I am not sure that these hardened Dimondites and Feeneyites will repent and believe Baptism of Desire and Blood.

so if The Dimonds believed in BOD would you still condemn them? why is it anyone who disagrees with you on baptism of desire is labelled a feenyite, why not call me a Pope Paulite?

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”67

Ambrose · « **Reply #51 on:** January 22, 2014, 07:11:41 AM »

Gooch wrote:

Quote

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”67

That Canon proves nothing against Baptism of Desire. You need to stop reading SBC/Dimond propaganda and read approved Catholic books.

Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not the sacrament of Baptism.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #52 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:33:08 PM »

I have no desire to go to Dimond brothers monastary. I don't value their opinions
I also would not go to Padre Pio Chapel in Coatesville, Pa.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #53 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:35:19 PM »

:alcohol:yes. Catholics not posers

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #54 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:47:05 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Gooch wrote:

Quote
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”67

That Canon proves nothing against Baptism of Desire. You need to stop reading SBC/Dimond propaganda and read approved Catholic books.

Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not the sacrament of Baptism.

so if bod is not a sacrament how can it save you?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”249

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #55 on:** January 23, 2014, 08:44:50 PM »

There aren't too many people out there who can lay waste on heretics and apostates more than the Dimond brothers, although, they are wrong on some things, too. Go figure... :smile:

Ambrose · « **Reply #56 on:** January 24, 2014, 02:26:56 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Ambrose
Gooch wrote:

Quote
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”67

That Canon proves nothing against Baptism of Desire. You need to stop reading SBC/Dimond propaganda and read approved Catholic books.

Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not the sacrament of Baptism.

so if bod is not a sacrament how can it save you?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”249

Baptism of Desire can save a soul, as it acts as a substitute for the sacrament. Most, but not all of the effects of baptism are accomplished through Baptism of Desire.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #57 on:** January 24, 2014, 07:30:02 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Gooch wrote:

Quote
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”67

That Canon proves nothing against Baptism of Desire. You need to stop reading SBC/Dimond propaganda and read approved Catholic books.

Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not the sacrament of Baptism.

so if bod is not a sacrament how can it save you?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”249

Baptism of Desire can save a soul, as it acts as a substitute for the sacrament. Most, but not all of the effects of baptism are accomplished through Baptism of Desire.

but wouldn't that directly contradict what Pope Paul III wrote?
that "the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation. let him be anathema..."

since you're saying the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?

Ambrose · « **Reply #58 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:04:28 AM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Ambrose
Gooch wrote:

Quote
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”67

That Canon proves nothing against Baptism of Desire. You need to stop reading SBC/Dimond propaganda and read approved Catholic books.

Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not the sacrament of Baptism.

so if bod is not a sacrament how can it save you?
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”249

Baptism of Desire can save a soul, as it acts as a substitute for the sacrament. Most, but not all of the effects of baptism are accomplished through Baptism of Desire.

but wouldn't that directly contradict what Pope Paul III wrote?
that "the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation. let him be anathema..."

since you're saying the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?

The sacrament is not optional, it is necessary. In the event that someone dies prior to receiving it, the desire or the act of martyrdom fulfills the necessity as Baptism of Desire and Blood are substitutes and provide most of the effects of the sacrament.

There is no contradiction between the Canon 5 on Baptism and Baptism of Desire.

Have you ever read any of the writings of the theologians on Baptism of Desire? If not, I would urge you to stop reading Dimond/SBC propaganda and learn your Faith from those authorized and commissioned by the Church to explain the Faith.

There was no controversy, ever, about Baptism of Desire. Catholics always peacefully believed this teaching, explicitly or implicitly. As Michael93's post shows, all catechisms that he has researched going back 500 years have taught Baptism of Desire.

Fr. Feeney's initial good act of defending EENS morphed into a terrible tragedy when he and the SBC under him began to attack Baptism of Desire and Blood. The fruits of this terrible act is plain for all to see, there are countless people now denying a dogmatic truth of Faith.

Do not construe from this that I am defending Richard Cushing, he was a villain too, and in my opinion the Holy Office Letter was correcting him too.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #59 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:08:38 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

[

but wouldn't that directly contradict what Pope Paul III wrote?
that "the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation. let him be anathema..."

since you're saying the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?
[/quote]

The sacrament is not optional, it is necessary. In the event that someone dies prior to receiving it, the desire or the act of martyrdom fulfills the necessity as Baptism of Desire and Blood are substitutes and provide most of the effects of the sacrament.

There is no contradiction between the Canon 5 on Baptism and Baptism of Desire.

.[/quote]
in 1 breath you say the sacrament is necessary which means without it you are doomed...next breath you say "in the event" which is an exception to the rule making the sacrament not necessary...don't you see the contradiction here?
I've read some theologians and must conclude they are wrong since I must follow wht the popes have declared time and time again, it has nothing to do with the Dimond's opinions..it's the pope's declarations vs theologians

Author Topic: the Dimonds monastery (Read 7770 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus