Author Topic: Dimonds (Read 12233 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** December 02, 2014, 07:12:06 PM »

Quote from: ascent

Quote from: Ladislaus
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.

6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.

No, they are not, at least not as real as the religious communities who were founded by valid religious clergy, notwithstanding issues of "no jurisdiction" and "not being licit". The Dimond monastery essentially just "set up shop" with no lineage to a validly ordained bishop, priest nor a consecrated monk. The founder of MHFM reportedly never even took vows while he was a lay postulant at another monastery before he left it and founded MHFM. Conversely, the SSPX, CMRI and SSPV have religious communities that are established by actual clerics who were conferred Holy Orders by validly ordained bishops. SSPX, CMRI and SSPV religious communities, despite their splintering, ultimately stem from the apostolate of a valid bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre, hence they have the mark of being Apostolic, notwithstanding their religious communities lacking official Church approbation due to the Crisis.

Being able to set up a religious community has absolutely nothing to do with simple valid Holy Orders, nor can any "consecrated monk" set up a religious community. It has to do with JURISDICTION, which no one right now in the Traditional world has (except in supplied fashion for necessities related to the salvation of souls). You seriously misunderstand how this works.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** December 02, 2014, 07:14:45 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Malleus
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Malleus
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.

This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.

I think they influence thousands of people. What do you think?

I seriously doubt it. I don't have anything solid to base that on. What are you going by to make you think that they do?

Most of those who find Father Feeney's position persuasive here on CI were influenced by Father Feeney and SBC and not the Dimonds.

Cantarella · « **Reply #62 on:** December 02, 2014, 07:15:36 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Lurking and learning here. :ready-to-eat:
But I'm confused - who is defending Card. Cushing?

Important reminder, Cantarella. +1
Quote
The heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter is the doctrinal foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. The one dogma of the Faith which Freemasons hate most vehemently is the one that proclaims the authority of the Church to teach and to command. Indeed, the initiation rite for one of the higher degrees of the “brotherhood” requires the initiate to stab with a dagger the Papal crown and tiara representing Pope Boniface VIII. Boniface was the Pope who defined ex cathedra the absolute necessity of personal submission to the Holy Roman pontiff in order to be saved.

CMRI sedevacantist Nado and the like...

Malleus · « **Reply #63 on:** December 02, 2014, 07:55:48 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Malleus
Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: Malleus
There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.

This statement seems to attribute a lot more influence to the Dimonds than what they have in reality.

I think they influence thousands of people. What do you think?

I seriously doubt it. I don't have anything solid to base that on. What are you going by to make you think that they do?

They send their stuff all over the world. They always have new comments of people heaping praises on them, year after year, and of course they can't put every single email they get there. People from all over the world send them emails of approval. Now they even got one of their ads on tv.

They once told me they had close to a 1000 emails to answer, and this was years ago. They check and answer it every single day. It's probably true.

Malleus · « **Reply #64 on:** December 02, 2014, 07:58:14 PM »

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Malleus
Except when it comes to Bergoglio or the other antipopes; then nothing is heresy and it is impossible to prove anyways.

False. I have repeatedly stated that I consider Bergoglio to be a Pelagian heretic. But, then again, the vast majority of the SVs here on CI are also Pelagian heretics. Thus you see the complexity of this issue? If I consider you Pelagian SVs to be Catholic, then I must also consider Francis to be a Catholic. Interesting dilemma, no?

But if I were to act like you SVs, I would just say that you are manifest heretics and not Catholics, and that would make it so.

Really one of the dumbest things Francis ever said was that Traditional Catholics are Pelagian heretics, with him being THE Pelagian heresiarch. Or did he actually have a point? Ah, never mind; he just has no idea what Pelagianism is.

Explain what you mean by SVs being Pelagian heretics.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #65 on:** December 02, 2014, 10:43:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Ladislaus
Let's have a more objective look at the Dimonds, since most people have an ax to grind.

6) In terms of their being brothers, the charge that they are "fake Benedictines" is absurd and uncharitable. They're every bit as REAL as 99% of all Traditional groups of religious that have been founded without the requisite jurisdiction.

No, they are not, at least not as real as the religious communities who were founded by valid religious clergy, notwithstanding issues of "no jurisdiction" and "not being licit". The Dimond monastery essentially just "set up shop" with no lineage to a validly ordained bishop, priest nor a consecrated monk. The founder of MHFM reportedly never even took vows while he was a lay postulant at another monastery before he left it and founded MHFM. Conversely, the SSPX, CMRI and SSPV have religious communities that are established by actual clerics who were conferred Holy Orders by validly ordained bishops. SSPX, CMRI and SSPV religious communities, despite their splintering, ultimately stem from the apostolate of a valid bishop, Archbishop Lefebvre, hence they have the mark of being Apostolic, notwithstanding their religious communities lacking official Church approbation due to the Crisis.

Being able to set up a religious community has absolutely nothing to do with simple valid Holy Orders, nor can any "consecrated monk" set up a religious community. It has to do with JURISDICTION, which no one right now in the Traditional world has (except in supplied fashion for necessities related to the salvation of souls). You seriously misunderstand how this works.

You seriously misunderstand or, perhaps, avoid the point I'm making. The point is the religious communities from SSPX, et al, are organic, hence their founder(s) has an actual lineage to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders. This makes these religious communities far more real than the Dimond brothers' monastery, which is not organic and is 100% lay founded, hence lacking any authenticity. Their monastery is no different than some bozo waking up tomorrow morning and allotting his barn and land for a few lay people to start their "monastery" while they call themselves "monks" and "brothers". Moreover, your argument about jurisdiction, which is beside the point, has little merit because Catholic means "universal", therefore in this Crisis of the (universal) Church, a valid clergy has jurisdiction everywhere, and at any time, to minister to the flock, despite not being granted regular faculties, nor jurisdiction, by heretical / apostate Rome.

Malleus · « **Reply #66 on:** December 03, 2014, 12:22:59 AM »

It is weird to see this defense of the Dimonds by Ladislaus. I'd like to know the reason behind it.

Anyways, they neither speak, nor behave, nor act nor live like real monks. If a real Benedictine monk were to hear how they speak he would fall on his back. They spend hours on the computer and phone every day. They don't even pray the full Divine Office, which they're supposed to do if they were real monks. To top it off they ditch their "religious garb" and dress as civilians when they sneak in incognito to receive the Sacraments from a Novus Ordo priest. Amazing hypocrites!

They're hacks and frauds who violate several points of the Holy Rule of St. Benedict.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #67 on:** December 03, 2014, 06:17:25 AM »

Quote from: ascent

You seriously misunderstand or, perhaps, avoid the point I'm making. The point is the religious communities from SSPX, et al, are organic, hence their founder(s) has an actual lineage to a member of the Church who was consecrated in the Holy Orders.

No, I misunderstand nothing. I'm SAYING that Holy Orders has nothing to do with it ... nothing. It may make you FEEL better about it, but some random priest can't just found a religious order without ecclesiastical approval. With that said, anyone can start something informal. That's how St. Benedict and a lot of orders first started; people set out to live a certain way and then later came the ecclesiastical approbation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** December 03, 2014, 06:27:39 AM »

Quote from: Malleus

It is weird to see this defense of the Dimonds by Ladislaus. I'd like to know the reason behind it.

You see, that's the problem with 99% of you people. I defend the Dimonds where I feel they should be defended and criticize them where I see that they need to be criticized. So, the "reason behind it"? Simple truth. I seek the truth only. That's why I am attacked by SVs and R&R alike, because in both positions I find some truth and, conversely, I find other parts of both positions to be problematic, and I call it as I see it, without any agenda, without feeling the need to fall into a "camp" or fixed ideological "system". When I find fault with an SV proposition, I am attacked by the SVs as being a "defender of Francis". When I find fault with an R&R proposition, I am attacked for being an SV. If I defend Francis against scurrilous and trumped up charges of "heresy", then I am "always" defending "the apostate". When I attack Francis for being a Pelagian, then I am attacked for being a "Feeneyite". There are many things on which I agree with the Dimonds, and quite a few on which I do not. What's so difficult to understand about that? And I remain open-minded about things. When a reasonable person of good will, like Nishant, makes a strong argument in favor of R&R or in favor of a Catholic BoD, I think about his arguments and ponder them, and remain open to changing my mind where the force of truth brings me to a different conclusion. But when other people just flail their arms, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing, obviously not objectively seeking the truth but pushing an agenda, then it becomes annoying background noise.

You guys stick people in these emotional buckets where they're all evil or all good. It's like the people who get attacked for "supporting the h0Ɩ0cαųst" if they think that Adolf Hitler was a skilled political leader. As Matthew pointed out on a different thread, very few people are 100% pure evil, eh?

OHCA · « **Reply #69 on:** December 03, 2014, 07:17:36 AM »

Quote from: Malleus

. . . when they sneak in incognito to receive the Sacraments from a Novus Ordo priest.

What Sacraments?

Do they confess to a pre-1968 NO priest? That's about the only thing that would be remotely consistent with their position.

If they confess to new rite "priests" or receive communion at a NO "mass," that is utterly illogical in light of their other positions.

Malleus · « **Reply #70 on:** December 03, 2014, 09:09:07 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Malleus
. . . when they sneak in incognito to receive the Sacraments from a Novus Ordo priest.

What Sacraments?

Do they confess to a pre-1968 NO priest? That's about the only thing that would be remotely consistent with their position.

I'm not sure if he's pre-1968, but he's byzantine.

What I'm saying is that the way they go about it is not consistent with the truth or with what they say.

APS · « **Reply #71 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:16:33 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Malleus
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Malleus
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.

Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.

But the excommunication said nothing of BoD so they grab hold of that and the Holy Office letter, well you know what they say about it.

Feeneyites are not intellectually honest so that's why I say until something supernatural happens they won't go away.

The letter of 1949 was sent explaining in detail the correct doctrine of baptism of desire.

From 1951 they published "Gate of Heaven", a book of 137 pages all agaisnt baptism of desire, and against the 1949 letter. Published while the SBC was already under censure. It was touted as their doctrinal position.

Cardinal Cushing wrote, September, 1952:
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision."

Wording from actually excommunication, February, 1953:

"the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.

On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law."

Cushinguite Nado lets her inability to debate rationally the topic of BOD to blur her understanding on the whole issue. She has taken it quite personally with Ladislaus and at this point is unable to form objective opinions on anything.

The heretical letter of 1949 claims that there are known exceptions to the EENS dogma which has been defined by three Church Councils. The known exceptions are supposed to be the souls who die "invincible ignorant" of the True Faith and are saved through subjective and ambiguous "implicit desire via last minute BOD".

This letter is also a straighforward and blant rejection of the Nicene Creed "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin" which refers to water Baptism only, the sacrament that has been revealed by God Himself. It is being implied in this letter that there are three or more known baptisms: water, desire, blood etc. Unfortunately, Vatican II curia - Novus Ordo, sedevacantists such as CMRI, and even SSPX priests such as Fr.Francois Laisney are guilty of the same faulty reasoning.

As said before, it seems that that the "traditionalists" can only point out to the errors in Vatican II but cannot really provide an alternative since they act unaware of the Cushing Heresy (invincible ignorance -> denial of EENS) which is the cause of those errors.

The EENS dogma (as all Catholic dogmas) is to be understood as solemnly declared, professed, and taught since the creation of the Church, without any change of meaning.

Quote

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Quote

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Cushinguism is an actual ERROR based on the modernist new doctrine of salvation made in the USA. The Archbishop of Boston and the liberal Jesuits there gave us the novel concept of an exceptional way of salvation: through "invincible ignorance" while in "false religion". This objective error was spread in the Catholic Church and carried over Vatican II. It is the main basis for liberalism and dissent in the Church.

It is pointless to discuss with those that have been attacked by the Cushinguite virus. Just as the conciliar Popes, the sedevacantists modernists BODers of CI all suffer from the same malady.

Cushinghites say that there can be known souls saved in invincible ignorance or baptism of desire, contradicting the ex cathedra thrice defined EENS dogma.

By saying that everyone need not enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are some that can be saved in false religions, these Cushinguites (Pope Francis style) throw out the window Cantate Domino, Florence, Trent, and even Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)!.

But once the virus of Cushinguism enters these modern souls, only a miracle of God's grace can cure it.

Cantarella yopu have made strong accusations such as the heretical excommunication, calling those in favor Cushingite. My question to you is name a theologian who says that Baptism of Desire is heresy. Anyone can interpret dogmas in their own light, Protestants do this with the Holy Writ. Until you can I have to assume that you are following a man made doctrine.

Pax Christi
Michael Tucker

APS · « **Reply #72 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:27:11 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: APS
I could not believe that the Dimonds had the Chutzpah to condemn someone as intelligent as Van Noort because he did not fit into their adolescent theology.

Whether you agree with them or not, there's nothing "adolescent" about their theology. No, the likes of Van Noort is simply not above criticism for being "intelligent". Karl Rahner is quite intelligent also. If all you had was "How dare you criticize an intelligent man such as Van Noort", it's really no wonder why you didn't get any response. Your emotional angsting is truly adolescent. It seems that we have yet another Pelagian heretic promoting the agenda here.

Van Noort is not merely intelligent he has a career as an unblemished Catholic Theologian. Ottaviani when he lead the Holy Office condemned Rahner for error. Ladislaus name one legitimate condemnation from a Catholic Authority against Van Noort.

Pax Christi
Michael Tucker

APS · « **Reply #73 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Malleus
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.

Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.

Father Feeney is no threat to the faith, someone who believes EENS and as a matter of personal opinion doesn't believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament of Baptism. You, Nado, a Pelagian heretic, who also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and publicly promote your heresies, are in fact the real danger to the Faith.

Cardinal "No salvation outside of the Church? Nonsense." Cushing, your hero, was the real danger to the Faith. Father Feeney posed no threat to anyone except to the organized Jewry of Boston.

Feeney was excommunicated by name. He was a danger to the faith otherwise the Pope would not have excommunicated him.

according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that "the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner". Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters

Are you telling me you do not believe in the Council of Constance?

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

APS · « **Reply #74 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:32:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Malleus
Feeneyism will not disappear until something supernatural happens. There is no authority at the moment to condemn the likes of the Dimonds, so this nonsense will go on until some authoritative proclamation comes.

Pope Pius XII authoritatively excommunicated the leader in order to help safeguard the faith. Forum owners should follow suit.

Father Feeney is no threat to the faith, someone who believes EENS and as a matter of personal opinion doesn't believe that God would allow any of His elect to die without the Sacrament of Baptism. You, Nado, a Pelagian heretic, who also reject the dogmatic teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and publicly promote your heresies, are in fact the real danger to the Faith.

Let's hear what you REALLY think of Pius XII. Don't hide it.

You know nothing about the history of what went on, Nadette. Father Feeney was excommunicated for not showing up in Rome and was being railroaded the entire time (which is why he didn't show up). Look into the history, heretic.

Blondel was excommunicated for not showing up as well. His defenders claim that he was railroaded.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker