Author Topic: Dimonds (Read 12233 times)

APS · « **Reply #75 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:38:28 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.

And the SSPX, CMRI, SSPV and other have seminaries were theology, philiophy and classical languages are studied.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

APS · « **Reply #76 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:41:19 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado
Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Cushing, Cardinal Cushing. Never Pius XII. An example of heretics going into denial when the Church Herself condemns them.

What condemnation?

The Letter of 1949 which was originally an inter office communication and it was placed in the Denzinger by ULTRA modernist Fr.Karl Rahner (probably Nado's favorite theologian)? This letter was supported by the Jєωιѕн Masonic liberal media and ironically in CI is repeatedly PROPAGATED and brought back to life by the modernists CMRI sedevacantists in their quest to UNDERMINE the exclusivity of Our Holy Roman Catholic Church as only possible means of human salvation.

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.

For the modernist sedevacantists, most traditionalists, and Novus Ordo Catholics, being saved in through BOD in "invincible ignorance" refer to physically visible cases as exceptions to the EENS dogma as we could ever see the dead. This does not change the infallible doctrine that all need to explicitly convert to Catholicism before death, in order to be saved, without ANY known exceptions.

Conspiracy theories are great but name a theologian that says explicilty Baptism of desire is heresy. Do you believe the Michael Muller CSSR is a heretic/cushingite/?

Pax Christi
Michael Tucker

APS · « **Reply #77 on:** December 03, 2014, 01:59:41 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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?

The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

Ladislaus · « **Reply #78 on:** December 03, 2014, 02:25:10 PM »

Quote from: APS

The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

If you want a full-blown discussion of EENS, take it to the BoD subforum. I do not agree that CATHOLIC Baptism of Desire is heresy. I do not defend that aspect of the Dimonds. Most proponents of BoD, however, actually reject EENS, reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and have a Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology.

Let me guess, you're another of the CMRI cohorts who are friends with Myrna, Emerentiana, "Lover of Truth", and Nado.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** December 03, 2014, 02:27:21 PM »

Quote from: APS

The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

You either did not read my post or it can't even register in your brain because you have such an ill will against EENS. I said specifically that I am not categorically defending the Dimonds. I agree with a lot of what they say, but reject other things that they say.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #80 on:** December 03, 2014, 02:28:31 PM »

Quote from: APS

Van Noort is not merely intelligent he has a career as an unblemished Catholic Theologian.

That's not even close to any kind of argument. No wonder the Dimonds blew you off.

Your entire argument seems to consist of "Van Noort" said it? Seriously? Father Feeney was also intelligent, and he said the differently.

APS · « **Reply #81 on:** December 03, 2014, 03:00:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: APS
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

If you want a full-blown discussion of EENS, take it to the BoD subforum. I do not agree that CATHOLIC Baptism of Desire is heresy. I do not defend that aspect of the Dimonds. Most proponents of BoD, however, actually reject EENS, reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and have a Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology.

Let me guess, you're another of the CMRI cohorts who are friends with Myrna, Emerentiana, "Lover of Truth", and Nado.

have never heard this before, what between those who believe in Catholic Baptism of Desire and those who believe in Baptism of Desire and reject EENS? I do not know Myrna, Emerentiana, Nado or Lover of truth and never been to a CMRI chapel.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

APS · « **Reply #82 on:** December 03, 2014, 03:14:18 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: APS
Van Noort is not merely intelligent he has a career as an unblemished Catholic Theologian.

That's not even close to any kind of argument. No wonder the Dimonds blew you off.

Your entire argument seems to consist of "Van Noort" said it? Seriously? Father Feeney was also intelligent, and he said the differently.

Nope, remember they condemned a Catholic theologian because the Dimonds' Feeneyism disagreed with Van Noort. Van Noort wrote a treatises on Dogmatic theology Feeney was excommunicated by the Pope and then reconciled with Cushingite Medeiros, without condemning the New Mass or Vatican II. Van Noort would not compromise with a heretic.

If Feeney's interpretation of EENS is so clear how come no theologian, treatises or catachism agrees with him? I know the answer to this and I beleieve the Dimonds would not address this because they know as well.

Pax Christi
Michael Tucker

Ladislaus · « **Reply #83 on:** December 03, 2014, 03:32:16 PM »

Just pathetic.

APS · « **Reply #84 on:** December 03, 2014, 03:56:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Just pathetic.

What is pathetic?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #85 on:** December 03, 2014, 03:57:10 PM »

Quote from: APS

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: APS
The best way to defend the Dimonds and thier EENS position is to answer my original question. Name a theologian that says the Baptism of Desire is heresy. Perhaps you have the same problem that the Dimonds had. If it helps I can name theologians that say BAptism of Desire is Catholic teaching.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

If you want a full-blown discussion of EENS, take it to the BoD subforum. I do not agree that CATHOLIC Baptism of Desire is heresy. I do not defend that aspect of the Dimonds. Most proponents of BoD, however, actually reject EENS, reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, and have a Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology.

Let me guess, you're another of the CMRI cohorts who are friends with Myrna, Emerentiana, "Lover of Truth", and Nado.

have never heard this before, what between those who believe in Catholic Baptism of Desire and those who believe in Baptism of Desire and reject EENS? I do not know Myrna, Emerentiana, Nado or Lover of truth and never been to a CMRI chapel.

Pax Christi
Mike Tucker

Ladislaus, just because a fellow poster here agrees with Baptism of Desire as being a teaching of the Church, does not mean we know each other, it means we know that it is a teaching of the church.

Someday you too will know that either here or in eternity!

I do however, know Emerentiana, just for the record!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** December 03, 2014, 04:05:10 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Ladislaus, just because a fellow poster here agrees with Baptism of Desire as being a teaching of the Church, does not mean we know each other, it means we know that it is a teaching of the church.

I was just curious, since the most active and ardent proponents of BoD (or, rather of Pelagian ecclesiology) have connections with the CMRI.

Binechi · « **Reply #87 on:** December 03, 2014, 04:17:27 PM »

Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?

APS · « **Reply #88 on:** December 03, 2014, 04:40:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: MyrnaM
Ladislaus, just because a fellow poster here agrees with Baptism of Desire as being a teaching of the Church, does not mean we know each other, it means we know that it is a teaching of the church.

I was just curious, since the most active and ardent proponents of BoD (or, rather of Pelagian ecclesiology) have connections with the CMRI.

Laudislaus is it not more likely that any traditional group which has formal theological training more likely to defend bod since the ssspx sspv cmri and all these traditional groups all teach the same the same thing on the matter. I think it is more likely that those who are American and have no formal theological or philosophical training could support Feeneyism.

Pax Christi
Michael Tucker

MyrnaM · « **Reply #89 on:** December 03, 2014, 04:50:28 PM »

Quote from: Director

Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is " I am at a loss on this one . ?

There is only ONE Baptism, even if a baptism is administrated by a Protestant or atheist, if PROPERLY done, it is a Catholic Baptism, thus the word, "Catholic".

Baptism of Desire can be defined by reading here:

http://www.cmri.org/search-results.shtml?q=Baptism%20of%20Desire