Author Topic: "Br." Dimond errors on BOB and BOD (Read 61132 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #60 on:** March 03, 2011, 01:32:56 AM »

Something else about Feeneyites -- they almost all think of each other as heretics. Jehanne is basically a Feeneyite ( he came up with his own little spin on the system, admittedly, to try to reconcile the impossible contradictions his position puts him in ) yet he is a wretched heretic in the eyes of Hietanen. Then there are others who are against David Landry or the Dimonds or both.

Jehanne · « **Reply #61 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:38:17 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Hietanen said:
Quote
It doesn't matter what you call it, the intention is still the same; to deliberately avoid conception! You are breaking the natural law. You are sinning mortally against reason and conscience. You are an enemy to Jesus Christ and His Church.

That's what they call the soft touch... :rolleyes:

I know what he will say. You can't be soft when you're dealing with hardened, vicious heretics... That is what makes dealing with Feeneyites so impossible, they don't see themselves as prideful, they just see themselves as right. The pride is in their belief that the Church allowed a heresy to be taught since the time of St. Augustine.

Though he does use the same arguments, I don't think this is David Landry. Firstly, Landry has a sense of righteousness, one might say exaggerated, that would forbid him from posting under a pseudo. Also, the content is the same, but the style is very slightly different ( exclamation points where Landry wouldn't use them ).

But it might as well be Landry. When they reach a certain point of conviction, all Feeneyites tend to sound the same.

Ha, ha..."soft touch," I like that. I consider myself a neo-Feeneyite, in that I believe Father Feeney's essential ideas and those of Saint Thomas to be fully reconcilable. It isn't that I think that I am right; rather, it is that I do not think that everyone can be wrong. This is the big problem that I have with modernistic theology (which, I think, at its core, is atheism with Catholic spirituality on top -- kind of like the blizzard Dairy Queen cake that my wife had for her birthday here recently!) is that it departs from the manifest understanding of its predecessors. Saint Vincent of Lérins did not condemn any development in Catholic theology, just the kind that was contradictory to that which came before it.

Hietanen · « **Reply #62 on:** March 03, 2011, 10:49:10 AM »

Tell me, people, why do you say I am self righteous, when I can prove my cause with dogma?

Please, tell me one saint that has taught NFP, or one pope (excluding Pope Pius XII, who is the only one, and that in a fallible capacity), that has taught NFP authoritatively.

You cannot find anything. You know it. You are just liars, heretics and of bad will. I have already quoted an infallible dogma condemning all forms of NFP, what ever name it goes under - whenever the intention is to avoid conception, as with standard days.
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays. To take effort in finding out just what days the wife is infertile, with thermometers, charts, etc. just to have relations to avoid conception, is obviously unnatural behavior, and was unheard of before in Church history. That's why most people had 8-20 kids in the older days. You dishonest people! Remember, few are Saved, most people are damned. Many people right here, prove this to be very true!

Again, if you cannot prove your case with dogma, then don't hold to your erroneous position, as if it were the truth, when it clearly is not.

You were also wondering if I was Landry. No, I am not. But he is a heretic, though, as you probably already know.
About "Most Holy Family Monastery", they are also heretics, and have been dealt with here:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php

Jehanne · « **Reply #63 on:** March 03, 2011, 01:11:31 PM »

Quote from: Hietanen

To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays.

To have relations with one's wife when she is pregnant is, technically, a form of "contraception," also.

Hietanen · « **Reply #64 on:** March 03, 2011, 01:53:27 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Hietanen
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays.

To have relations with one's wife when she is pregnant is, technically, a form of "contraception," also.

Stop being of bad will, stop excuse your mortal sins. You cannot quote anything, not a saint, not a pope, not a council, to approve of your mortally sinful practices. Yet do you follow it as if it was the truth. You are rejecting God, and following traditions of men.

Relations during pregnancy is lawful (although not meritorious), since the couples in question has worked to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage, child bearing. The only reason it is lawful, is because of human weakness and concupiscence. The best thing, however, is to remain chaste during the entire pregnancy, since the wife cannot become pregnant again. Chastity is angelic, lust is not.

But you, on the other hand, work and put an effort in avoiding the primary purpose of marriage, child bearing. So, your comparison was not even remotely similar - for you don't even want children or to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage to begin with.

You are in fact a murderer. Every child God would have wanted to send you, but that you killed though your mortal sins of child avoidance, will you be accused of having murdered.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 03, 2011, 02:08:58 PM »

Hietanen said:

Quote

Stop being of bad will, stop excuse your mortal sins. You cannot quote anything, not a saint, not a pope,

Have you forgotten Pius XII already after just a couple of posts?

Something else that finally helped me is realizing that the rhythm method was well-publicized, everyone knew Catholics used it, but the Popes never said anything against it. And then Pius XII gave it the final seal of approval. I think it was my, let's say, lack of appreciation of Pius XII's stewardship that resulted in my blind spot on this one.

That being said, Jehanne has to have grave reasons. That's between him and his priest.

Hietanen · « **Reply #66 on:** March 03, 2011, 03:25:52 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Hietanen said:
Quote
Stop being of bad will, stop excuse your mortal sins. You cannot quote anything, not a saint, not a pope,

Have you forgotten Pius XII already after just a couple of posts?

Must I repeat my self?

Quote from: Hietanen

Please, tell me one saint that has taught NFP, or one pope (excluding Pope Pius XII, who is the only one, and that in a fallible capacity), that has taught NFP authoritatively.

You cannot find anything. You know it. You are just liars, heretics and of bad will. I have already quoted an infallible dogma condemning all forms of NFP, what ever name it goes under.
To have relations only during the infertile periods, while avoiding relations during all fertile periods, is contraception, as any honest person will agree with, but that is hard to find nowadays. To take effort in finding out just what days the wife is infertile, with thermometers, charts, etc. just to have relations to avoid conception, is obviously unnatural behavior, and was unheard of before in Church history. That's why most people had 8-20 kids in the older days. You dishonest people! Remember, few are Saved, most people are damned. Many people right here, prove this to be very true!

Again, if you cannot prove your case with dogma, then don't hold to your erroneous position, as if it were the truth, when it clearly is not.

You were also wondering if I was Landry. No, I am not. But he is a heretic, though, as you probably already know.
About "Most Holy Family Monastery", they are also heretics, and have been dealt with here:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/heretics/most-holy-family-monastery-exposed.php

Quote from: Raoul76

Something else that finally helped me is realizing that the rhythm method was well-publicized, everyone knew Catholics used it, but the Popes never said anything against it. And then Pius XII gave it the final seal of approval.

Argument of silence is hardly an argument at all. Pope Pius XII was a very weak Pope, who allowed heresy to flourish during his reign. So just because he never condemned it, as his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius XI), says nothing. Why? Because we already have a dogma condemning this sinful behavior. But you people couldn't care about that.

Please, tell me, why do you people reject the dogmas all the time?

Quote from: Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).”

Quote from: Raoul76

I think it was my, let's say, lack of appreciation of Pius XII's stewardship that resulted in my blind spot on this one.

Dogma overrules all your pathetic arguments. Dogma is law. Dogma is unchangeable. Dogma is truths fallen from Heaven, directly from God. Why, then, do you reject them, clinging unto everything else? Why? Because it fits your sinful lifestyle, that's why!

Raul, it's perfectly clear. It's your sinful lifestyle that made you fall into countless of heresies and mortal sins, that's why, and nothing but why. If you want to come out of your heresies, you need first to change your way of life. Please, read this article, and find out if you live in some deliberate mortal sin:

Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved

Jehanne · « **Reply #67 on:** March 03, 2011, 04:10:34 PM »

Married couples have a divine right not to have sex, if both agree to it, provided, of course, that relationship is at least consummated. Never in Magisterial teaching has it ever been proclaimed that, "One must have sex with one's spouse once a day, every day, or at least once a week, with no sex in a month being a mortal sin."

Consider the Crusades. Married men went off to war, to fight for Christendom. Was that a mortal sin? They were not having sex with their wives, and vice-a-versa (we hope at least!)

Hietanen · « **Reply #68 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:21:45 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Married couples have a divine right not to have sex, if both agree to it, provided, of course, that relationship is at least consummated. Never in Magisterial teaching has it ever been proclaimed that, "One must have sex with one's spouse once a day, every day, or at least once a week, with no sex in a month being a mortal sin."

Consider the Crusades. Married men went off to war, to fight for Christendom. Was that a mortal sin? They were not having sex with their wives, and vice-a-versa (we hope at least!)

I have no idea what you are talking about or what it had to do with my previous post. You are obviously delirious and have nothing reasonable to say. This is because you obviously are wrong, and you know about it.

Instead of answering simple questions or answering any of my arguments, you are coming up with new irrelevant things all along. God have left you in such spiritual blindness since you are rejecting His grace. Yes you are resisting the truth as much as possible.

Although you are asking irrelevant questions just to dodge my questions? I will still answer them for you.
No, if the husband goes on a Crusade, both parties must remain chaste. The Church is above the marriage, and the Church affairs (the salvation of souls) has priority before the marriage debt. I have read this or a precise like answer in the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas, don't recall where thought.

Yes, married couples must give to one another when they demand it, because of concupiscence and human weakness (this is thus nothing meritorious, but allowed to avoid a greater evil). But they are never allowed to make calculations by using charts or thermometers, in order to avoid conception. This is why most families before were very large. They let God decide the number of their children. However, if both couples consents on living chaste, they can do so, until one of the party wants to resume the marriage purpose, the begetting of children.

So, now when I have answered your irrelevant question, maybe you can answer mine?

Jehanne · « **Reply #69 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:32:38 PM »

Quote from: Hietanen

Quote from: Jehanne
Married couples have a divine right not to have sex, if both agree to it, provided, of course, that relationship is at least consummated. Never in Magisterial teaching has it ever been proclaimed that, "One must have sex with one's spouse once a day, every day, or at least once a week, with no sex in a month being a mortal sin."

Consider the Crusades. Married men went off to war, to fight for Christendom. Was that a mortal sin? They were not having sex with their wives, and vice-a-versa (we hope at least!)

I have no idea what you are talking about or what it had to do with my previous post. You are obviously delirious and have nothing reasonable to say. This is because you obviously are wrong, and you know about it.

Instead of answering simple questions or answering any of my arguments, you are coming up with new irrelevant things all along. God have left you in such spiritual blindness since you are rejecting His grace. Yes you are resisting the truth as much as possible.

Although you are asking irrelevant questions just to dodge my questions? I will still answer them for you.
No, if the husband goes on a Crusade, both parties must remain chaste. The Church is above the marriage, and the Church affairs (the salvation of souls) has priority before the marriage debt. I have read this or a precise like answer in the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas, don't recall where thought.

Yes, married couples must give to one another when they demand it, because of concupiscence and human weakness (this is thus nothing meritorious, but allowed to avoid a greater evil). But they are never allowed to make calculations by using charts or thermometers, in order to avoid conception. This is why most families before were very large. They let God decide the number of their children. However, if both couples consents on living chaste, they can do so, until one of the party wants to resume the marriage purpose, the begetting of children.

So, now when I have answered your irrelevant question, maybe you can answer mine?

I do not use charts, thermometers, etc., unless, I am drunk and delirious. :wine-drinking: Seriously, I agree, that NFP, if refined to a precise science is sinful. However, having sex with one's spouse during certain times of the month and not others, sorry, don't see it. BTW, please provide one Magisterial and/or theological reference that teaches that married couples should abstain during pregnancy.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #70 on:** March 03, 2011, 07:45:52 PM »

The church teaches that couples that want to use natural family planning must GET PERMISSION from a priest before doing so.
The reasons are :
Women's health bad or life in jeopardy with another pregnancy
Financial problems
or any reason the priest deems worthy to grant the permission.
Otherwise, natural family planning cannot be practiced b]

Emerentiana · « **Reply #71 on:** March 03, 2011, 07:47:34 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Hietanen said:
Quote
It doesn't matter what you call it, the intention is still the same; to deliberately avoid conception! You are breaking the natural law. You are sinning mortally against reason and conscience. You are an enemy to Jesus Christ and His Church.

That's what they call the soft touch... :rolleyes:

I know what he will say. You can't be soft when you're dealing with hardened, vicious heretics... That is what makes dealing with Feeneyites so impossible, they don't see themselves as prideful, they just see themselves as right. The pride is in their belief that the Church allowed a heresy to be taught since the time of St. Augustine.

Though he does use the same arguments, I don't think this is David Landry. Firstly, Landry has a sense of righteousness, one might say exaggerated, that would forbid him from posting under a pseudo. Also, the content is the same, but the style is very slightly different ( exclamation points where Landry wouldn't use them ).

But it might as well be Landry. When they reach a certain point of conviction, all Feeneyites tend to sound the same.

Right, Raoul!!!!! :applause:

innocenza · « **Reply #72 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:14:37 PM »

Why did Pius XII use the term eugenics in connection with his saying that NFP was lawful?

Hietanen · « **Reply #73 on:** March 04, 2011, 05:53:33 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

I do not use charts, thermometers, etc., unless, I am drunk and delirious. :wine-drinking: Seriously, I agree, that NFP, if refined to a precise science is sinful. However, having sex with one's spouse during certain times of the month and not others, sorry, don't see it.

Even if not refined to a precise science with charts and thermometers, it is still sinful if both husband and wife make a deliberate plan, scheme or schedule that they follow, resulting in husband and wife having relations only during the known infertile periods, while avoiding the fertile periods.

You don't want to have children, that's why you deliberately avoids the fertile periods. Also, you couldn't possibly know about your wifes infertile periods unless you both were in on it. Thus, have you and your wife made up a scheme of your own - a science in keeping track of the infertile periods - maybe not with thermometers or charts - but with full consent of your mind; for a deliberate plan is made. When a deliberate plan is made in avoiding children, the mortal sin of contraception occurs. This is a dogma.

Please, now to my question, that you have avoided all along. Why, Jehanne, and everyone else on this thread, do you deny this dogma that condemn the sinful behavior you defend?

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’ Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).”

Quote from: Jehanne

BTW, please provide one Magisterial and/or theological reference that teaches that married couples should abstain during pregnancy.

I never said you must abstain from each other during pregnancy. I said, spouses should abstain during pregnancy. That is the best thing, and that is what perfect couples do, who only does what is necessary, but nothing beyond that. As I have said before, it is lawful, because of human weakness and concupiscence, and to avoid a greater evil.

Quote from: Emerentiana

The church teaches that couples that want to use natural family planning must GET PERMISSION from a priest before doing so.
The reasons are :
Women's health bad or life in jeopardy with another pregnancy
Financial problems
or any reason the priest deems worthy to grant the permission.
Otherwise, natural family planning cannot be practiced

No, you are clearly wrong. The Pope even mentions those instances that you brought forward and condemn people who used these excuses.
Natural Family Planning is contraception. Therefore, it cannot be practiced for any reason. Pope Pius XI condemned contraception for any reason, no matter how grave, specifically mentioning the medical excuse of “difficulties… on the part of the mother” and the economic excuse of “difficulties… on the part of family circuмstances.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties, whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circuмstances. But, no reason, however grave, may be put forward by anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature, and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Please. Why do you reject dogma all the time? And, where is your faith in God?

GOD FEEDS THE BIRDS WHICH NEITHER REAP NOR SOW

“And he will love thee and multiply thee, and will bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy vintage, thy oil, and thy herds, and the flocks of thy sheep upon the land, for which he swore to thy fathers that he would give it thee.” (Deut. 7:13)

The word of God condemns anyone who attempts to excuse the mortal sin of contraception for any reason, one being economic. Those who use the economic excuse faithlessly say that if they have too many children they will not be able to feed or clothe them, or provide their other necessities. These fallen-away Catholics do not really believe in the word and power of God.

“Therefore I say to you: Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. The life is more than the meat: and the body is more than the raiment. Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? …Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. Now, if God clothe in this manner the grass that is to-day in the field and to-morrow is cast into the oven: how much more you, O ye of little faith? …seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Lk. 12:22-24, 27-28, 31)

Dear reader, you will either truly believe in the word of God or not. It does no good to say you believe while your actions prove otherwise. “Let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” (1Jn. 3:18) Your professed faith is tested when it comes time to put it into action. “Faith without works is dead. (Ja. 2:20) Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” (Ja. 1:22) Only those are blessed who hear the word of God and keep it. “Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.” (Lk. 11:28) Do you really believe God can feed, clothe, and shelter your family no matter how big it is?

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 A.D. 307: “[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife.”

Woe to faithless fallen-away Catholics who say they cannot feed their families due to difficult economic conditions, implying God cannot provide for them. Nothing is impossible with God.

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii: “We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies putting aside the law of God which prohibits all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circuмstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the Grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent: “Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you”.

Jehanne · « **Reply #74 on:** March 04, 2011, 07:22:58 AM »

Hietanen: Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930:“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."

Again, no "condemnation" about having sex when your wife is menstruating, even though you both know that there is NO chance that she will get pregnant. I think that the Pope is talking about "withdrawal," but just does not want to put that "description" into a Magisterial text. :smile: