Unfortunately anyone not new to this debate won't have heard anything new in this but it will definitely elicit a Dimond response. It's worth noting that they freely interchange "Feeneyite" with "Dimondite" which is an essential distinction in any EENS debate. No discussion of any of the finer distinctions either. They also repeat the slander that (((certain people))) pushed through a book against Father Feeney. Towards the very end they use the "heretical Church" argument.

I actually have quite a few ecclesiology questions for the guy interviewed, I don't think either can win a debate (ontological reality aside if they were right) with the Dimonds. It is interesting to see them cautiously avoid talking too much on Church fathers, this is a more prudential move than you generally see with the implicit BoD side of the debate. I do think attributing the Dimond's error to pride is dumb when it is a jurisdictional thing at the end of the day (this is the strongest argument against them binding consciences). The Dimond's position is not invincible but their line of argumentation does not go for the jugular and does not even really address "Feeneyite" and Dimondite theology adequately (separately).



Maybe someone link these guys here?

So that's what Steven Speray looks like. I read his blog every once in a while.

You could send an email to MHFM if you want to see them rebut the video. Although, I'm sure they will address it eventually if some nobody like Return to Tradition can find himself in their crosshairs for an off-handed YouTube comment.

I'm guessing they have been working on something for a minute now, there is a week old video Speray made that activated Dimondites.

More interesting than Speray is the CFP host. I thought "The Spence" was a haircut that died out post-Charlottesville.

I stopped watching after a minute of his slander against Father Feeney.  Father Feeny did not get into trouble over his denial of BoD, with distinctions, which came later.  He was in hot water merely for reiterating the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS, and that is what his enemies attacked him for.  This idea of BoD has only become a hot topic among Trads, whereas for Father Feeney (and his enemies) it was a side issue to EENS.

I love how he denounces Father Feeney for taking the words of Our Lord about being baptized by water and the Holy Spirit literally.  Church has always taken that passage literally, the same way they take Our Lord's requirement to eat His Flesh literally.  It is dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation and that there can be no membership in the Church without Baptism.  So the teaching of Our Lord was absolutely to be taken literally.  Some later speculated that one might receive the Sacrament in an alternate mode, but that does not mean this passage is not to be taken literally.  In fact, he's implying the opposite, that it was a metaphor ... which was anathematized by Trent.  Guy speaks like a Moernist.

This guy discredited imself as incompetent within the first minute or two.  What is his qualification anyway to be called an "apologist"?

Father Feeney "came up with this idea that you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven without Baptism of water".  What a baboon this guy is.  Sure, Father Feeny just "came up with that idea".

I'm rooting for the Dimond Brothers on this one and hope that they rip this guy a new rectal orifice.

I listened to a few minutes and these guys are in fact, as the Dimonds would put it, bad willed diabolical babboons.  Every other sentence is a lie and a distortion.

SVs are the biggest idiots by far on this particular issue and they're doing the devil's work here.

Did I mishear that this scuм is accusing Father Feeney of having "abused 39 children"?  So he's slandering the man's memory now as well.

Did I mishear that this scuм is accusing Father Feeney of having "abused 39 children"?  So he's slandering the man's memory now as well.

Yes, it's this same Jєωιѕн slander getting leveled at Feeney over and over again... And it is Jєωιѕн, because that's exactly who +Cushing and the Kennedys were trying to please with the Father's excommunication and the closing of the SBC.

These people don't mention +Cushing a single time.

I'm rooting for the Dimond Brothers on this one and hope that they rip this guy a new rectal orifice.

I relish the thought. No one so throughly decimates these types like the Dimonds. I'm still in awe of their complete and utter takedown of Jay Dyer a couple years ago.

The Dimonds already debated Steve Speray.  Just linking in case no one saw this yet, it was 8 years ago.



I'm sure Dimonds will either challenge him to another debate or do a video on him.