Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on October 07, 2021, 03:11:47 PM
-
:confused: Why is there no anti-BOD version congregation like the SSPX or CMRI? Or is there one I never heard of? I know there's Fr. Dominic Crawford, who apparently runs a cult, and Bishop Neal Webster, who apparently has no online presence, but is there seriously no other bishop? What are we EENS, one-baptism believers supposed to do?
-
Don't worry, one day you'll get what you desire ;)
-
Well I asked the Dimond brothers why they didn't find a bishop to ordain one of them priests and they told me that there was not one truly Catholic bishop with valid orders that they knew about. I am sure they looked for one.
-
'cause anti-bod ain't a religion!
-
Even Most Holy Family Monastery, they are so NOT open about their monastery, if it's even real! They only have a few buildings they show, but I've never seen their chapel or anything, really. They don't show how many monks they have, how to become a monk, or almost anything about their order. Why all the secrecy?!
-
The Dimonds are most likely shills and fakes. There's plenty of resources that expose them for the phoneys they are but I won't get into all that here. They're not real monks and I think they are CIA plants personally, to keep tabs on the "trads" to make sure no one gets too close to the actual truth and send people down rabbit holes. Like most shills, they say a lot of true things but enough deadly poison to make sure you're not actually Catholic or become one.
Once upon a time I thought they were great and a harbor of truth in these dark times but I learned later (rather God mercifully enlightened me) that that is not the case. Be careful with anyone out there purporting to have the full Truth of Catholicism. Bottom line is that no trad minded has all the answers.
-
:confused: Why is there no anti-BOD version congregation like the SSPX or CMRI? Or is there one I never heard of? I know there's Fr. Dominic Crawford, who apparently runs a cult, and Bishop Neal Webster, who apparently has no online presence, but is there seriously no other bishop? What are we EENS, one-baptism believers supposed to do?
If this isn't a troll post just keep your head down and go to trad chapel.
-
If this isn't a troll post just keep your head down and go to trad chapel.
If anyone says this is a troll post, that's serious calumny. The OP needs to know, and your responses could be life-changing for him and I. I pray there will be a serious answer.
-
There’s no such thing as a BOD-Catholic, or an anti-BOD Catholic. Go to a Traditional chapel, do penance and pray to God. Stop getting distracted.
-
The CMRI is fine as long as you don't sit in a pew and start talking about EENS. Just go to your local chapel and live a holy life. We do not need more divisions.
-
If anyone says this is a troll post, that's serious calumny. The OP needs to know, and your responses could be life-changing for him and I. I pray there will be a serious answer.
I thought you were going to say: If anyone says this is a troll post, let him be anathema. :laugh2:
-
The CMRI is fine as long as you don't sit in a pew and start talking about EENS. Just go to your local chapel and live a holy life. We do not need more divisions.
What about donations in the collection basket? And, what if my son had a vocation to the priesthood or religious life? Really, are we just supposed to ignore the una cuм issue and the three baptisms problem?
-
What about donations in the collection basket? And, what if my son had a vocation to the priesthood or religious life? Really, are we just supposed to ignore the una cuм issue and the three baptisms problem?
As for the collection plate, consider that The labourer is worthy of his reward (1st. Timothy 5:18) and defrauding workers of their wage is one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. There is also the Fifth Preceipt of the Church which is You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church". Putting aside whether a particular priest should be provided his daily bread, shelter, and transportation, there are requirements for Holy Mass that are provided by workers. Unless it is outdoors or in a donated space, a chapel was built / converted or a space is rented. Linens are purchased and regularly laundered. Hosts, sacramental wine, candles (beeswax, which is more expensive), and incense are made by somebody and are purchased. Utilities (water, sewer, electricity, heating oil or natural gas) need to be paid for and someone supports their family by working in these areas.
If someone attends a chapel or a periodic Mass provided by a traveling priest for the graces provided, they have an obligation to help with the associated temporal costs according to their means, I believe.
To my knowledge, in the United States (and I am uncertain as to if there are any options in Canada) there are 4 seminaries that offer a traditional formation for Holy Orders, not including the FSSP’S Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska. Nor is there a consideration of any self study / apprentice under another priest situations which may exist out there.
These four are:
- St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary of the SSPX in Dillwyn, Virginia.
- Mater Dei Seminary of the CMRI in Omaha, Nebraska.
- Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brookville, Florida, associated with Bishop Donald Sanborn. It is in the process of moving to Pennsylvania.
- Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary in Boston, Kentucky, “affiliated” with the SSPX Marian Corps ~ Fr./Bp. Joseph Pfeiffer.
The first is una cuм. The next two are non una cuм, with number 3 being especially “dogmatic” about the issue from my reading. Who knows about number 4.
As far as I know, and I am fairly certain, the first three accept the definition of Baptism as given in the Baltimore Catechism and nearly all other pre VII English language catechisms with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. To my knowledge, and I am fairly certain, the magisterium of the Church has never challenged these catechism. Who knows what number 4 may be thinking.
The first choice most defiantly provides for valid Holy Orders. Almost everyone accepts the validity of the Thuc line consecrations of Bishops Mark Pivarunas, CMRI and Donald Sanborn. Some, while accepting their validity, may question the illicitness of ordinations performed by them, which is another topic. To even consider the situation with number 4 may require a trip to the Twilight Zone.
-
Is there one resistance group that isn't a cult or infested with spies and troublemakers?
-
Well I asked the Dimond brothers why they didn't find a bishop to ordain one of them priests and they told me that there was not one truly Catholic bishop with valid orders that they knew about. I am sure they looked for one.
Yet, they do, or have gone to a Greek Rite church which is under diocesan authority. A case could be made about the greater safety of a diocesan Greek rite bishop and priest, but it would seem contrary to what they have wrote. They appear to hold to the non una cuм error (older missals and hand missal had the king after Pope and bishop even in countries without a Catholic sovereign, so that's nonsense), so I don't know.
-
The Dimonds are most likely shills and fakes. There's plenty of resources that expose them for the phoneys they are but I won't get into all that here. They're not real monks and I think they are CIA plants personally, to keep tabs on the "trads" to make sure no one gets too close to the actual truth and send people down rabbit holes. Like most shills, they say a lot of true things but enough deadly poison to make sure you're not actually Catholic or become one.
Actually this is my belief too. It sure fits the observable data. And there really isn't any other plausible explanation for why they do the things they do.
-
Actually this is my belief too. It sure fits the observable data. And there really isn't any other plausible explanation for why they do the things they do.
Like what things that they do? As for being "fake monks", then the SSPX sisters, Bishop Kelly's sisters, and all the Traditional religious are "fake" religious. None of them have any kind of canonical approval. They're living the rule in a time of crisis with no Catholic authority. They're as much monks as the SSPX sisters or Bishop Kellys sisters are sisters.
-
Well I asked the Dimond brothers why they didn't find a bishop to ordain one of them priests and they told me that there was not one truly Catholic bishop with valid orders that they knew about. I am sure they looked for one.
There MUST be a truly Catholic bishop somewhere, so the Church will continue.
-
Don't worry, one day you'll get what you desire ;)
:laugh1:
-
Is there one resistance group that isn't a cult or infested with spies and troublemakers?
B. Zendejas' chapel in Texas seems good to me. Haven't been to another that felt safe.
-
Yet, they do, or have gone to a Greek Rite church which is under diocesan authority. A case could be made about the greater safety of a diocesan Greek rite bishop and priest, but it would seem contrary to what they have wrote. They appear to hold to the non una cuм error (older missals and hand missal had the king after Pope and bishop even in countries without a Catholic sovereign, so that's nonsense), so I don't know.
They don't hold the non una cuм position, they even have an article on their website about it: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass/)/
As for them being CIA plants: maybe. I don't believe they are personally, but its possible. Present the evidence and we can discuss it, otherwise it's just vain speculation.
That said, they sure put out some really solid apologetical videos against EO and Protestantism for "CIA plants."
-
I am unaware of any chapel or parish which rejects Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood along with the salvation by invincible ignorance and Natural Law hypothesis. The St. Benedict Center which was founded by Fr. Feeney has a visiting priest for Mass who himself does not hold to their positions on the matter. Moreover, even the St. Benedict Center has deviated from Fr. Feeney’s positions to a certain extent.
After the passing of Fr. Wathen, I am also unaware of any priest in the world who holds to a “strict” interpretation of EENS. Fr. Wathen also rejected NFP, God rest his beautiful soul.
-
I am unaware of any chapel or parish which rejects Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood along with the salvation by invincible ignorance and Natural Law hypothesis. The St. Benedict Center which was founded by Fr. Feeney has a visiting priest for Mass who himself does not hold to their positions on the matter. Moreover, even the St. Benedict Center has deviated from Fr. Feeney’s positions to a certain extent.
After the passing of Fr. Wathen, I am also unaware of any priest in the world who holds to a “strict” interpretation of EENS. Fr. Wathen also rejected NFP, God rest his beautiful soul.
There's Bishop Neal Webster, the one who attempted to consecrate Father Pfeiffer.
-
I honestly don't get how MHFM are considered the most extreme/divisive group out there. I'd say Fr. Cekada (RIP) did far more damage to Catholic traditionalism than the Dimonds ever have. I've honestly gained more fruit from their videos than other traditionalist outlets.
-
The CMRI is fine as long as you don't sit in a pew and start talking about EENS. Just go to your local chapel and live a holy life. We do not need more divisions.
Talking about EENS - or talk against using NFP.
-
There's Bishop Neal Webster, the one who attempted to consecrate Father Pfeiffer.
Don't trust him in the least.
-
Talking about EENS - or talk against using NFP.
There is no perfect chapel.
You do the best you can with what God provides you.
-
There is no perfect chapel.
You do the best you can with what God provides you.
Not arguing that. Just saying that the CMRI are liberals on EENS and promote Natural Family Planning. Neither of these are small things. And they do affect the theology of these chapels, and perhaps your experience in confession - not to mention the sacrament of matrimony.
-
Not arguing that. Just saying that the CMRI are liberals on EENS and promote Natural Family Planning. Neither of these are small things. And they do affect the theology of these chapels, and perhaps your experience in confession - not to mention the sacrament of matrimony.
Don't get me started on matrimony.
-
Don't trust him in the least.
I knew him for years ... before he was even ordained a priest. He’s a good man. Now, if you’re concerned about the validity of his Orders, that’s a separate matter.
What do you mean that you don’t trust him?
-
I knew him for years ... before he was even ordained a priest. He’s a good man. Now, if you’re concerned about the validity of his Orders, that’s a separate matter.
What do you mean that you don’t trust him?
Not looking at him as a man, but as a religious.
-
They don't hold the non una cuм position, they even have an article on their website about it: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/una-cuм-mass/)/
As for them being CIA plants: maybe. I don't believe they are personally, but its possible. Present the evidence and we can discuss it, otherwise it's just vain speculation.
That said, they sure put out some really solid apologetical videos against EO and Protestantism for "CIA plants."
I was the one who originally posted that they might be CIA plants, I could be wrong on that point but if one looks at a lot of the evidence against them, it's pretty overwhelming that they have some serious issues and are very suspect.
1. It's well known that they filter comments in the videos they allow comments on and only leave comments up that point out how "great" they are or occasionally a comment that they can refute. There's even a few comments saying things like "Looks like these guys are the 2 Witnesses of Apocalypse!" but the Dimonds never remove those comments or in humilty correct them. Why?
2. If one looks at both sides of the lawsuit with Hoyle and not just believing what the Dimonds say about it, the Dimonds don't really come out smelling like roses.
3. What they did to Jorge Clavellina was disgusting and Jorge has a lot of refutations of them as he was a hardened Dimondite at one point and has first hand knowledge of what they're like. Dimond Data is the YT channel.
4. "RI" has a lot of material against them as well showing how they are Sarabaite monks and the mysterious death of Joseph Natale and how Mike (Fred) basically took his place without having the proper prerequisites. I don't really want to link this "RI" guy because of his radical beliefs on other things.
5. They threaten people who don't agree with them on every little point they make. Even making comments like "we know where you live" or "you wouldn't say that to my face you punk." Does that sound like monk behavior to you?
6. They've been pointed out by several people how they are wrong about JPII being the Antichrist based on the Church Fathers and just common sense but Dimonds still push it. Why? Sounds like an agenda to me.
7. They never talk about how they were wrong about this or that, no matter what, they behave and come across like they have all the answers to what's going on and will stick to their "script."
8. As someone pointed out in another thread they show people how to make a contract with Satan in their 3 hour magician video, if they had any prudence they would leave that out.
There's more I could say but I'll leave it at that as those are the most important points. Of course they will have good material as well, shills have a lot of truth on their side or else people wouldn't really follow them, they have to appear to be very Catholic and Holy so of course they will refute Prots and "Orthodox" but it's that 1% poison one has to be vigilant about. I was a big follower of theirs as well and thought about joining at one point until I was shown what fakes they actually are.
-
I was the one who originally posted that they might be CIA plants, I could be wrong on that point but if one looks at a lot of the evidence against them, it's pretty overwhelming that they have some serious issues and are very suspect.
1. It's well known that they filter comments in the videos they allow comments on and only leave comments up that point out how "great" they are or occasionally a comment that they can refute. There's even a few comments saying things like "Looks like these guys are the 2 Witnesses of Apocalypse!" but the Dimonds never remove those comments or in humilty correct them. Why?
2. If one looks at both sides of the lawsuit with Hoyle and not just believing what the Dimonds say about it, the Dimonds don't really come out smelling like roses.
3. What they did to Jorge Clavellina was disgusting and Jorge has a lot of refutations of them as he was a hardened Dimondite at one point and has first hand knowledge of what they're like. Dimond Data is the YT channel.
4. "RI" has a lot of material against them as well showing how they are Sarabaite monks and the mysterious death of Joseph Natale and how Mike (Fred) basically took his place without having the proper prerequisites. I don't really want to link this "RI" guy because of his radical beliefs on other things.
5. They threaten people who don't agree with them on every little point they make. Even making comments like "we know where you live" or "you wouldn't say that to my face you punk." Does that sound like monk behavior to you?
6. They've been pointed out by several people how they are wrong about JPII being the Antichrist based on the Church Fathers and just common sense but Dimonds still push it. Why? Sounds like an agenda to me.
7. They never talk about how they were wrong about this or that, no matter what, they behave and come across like they have all the answers to what's going on and will stick to their "script."
8. As someone pointed out in another thread they show people how to make a contract with Satan in their 3 hour magician video, if they had any prudence they would leave that out.
There's more I could say but I'll leave it at that as those are the most important points. Of course they will have good material as well, shills have a lot of truth on their side or else people wouldn't really follow them, they have to appear to be very Catholic and Holy so of course they will refute Prots and "Orthodox" but it's that 1% poison one has to be vigilant about. I was a big follower of theirs as well and thought about joining at one point until I was shown what fakes they actually are.
Very interesting, I'll check out that YT channel and his blog. Thanks for sharing
-
Very interesting, I'll check out that YT channel and his blog. Thanks for sharing
These are merely criticisms of the Dimonds ... with not a shred of evidence here tying them to the CIA. Deleting negative comments? Lots of people do that. They're mean? OK. And? Where's the tie to the CIA? Hoyle gave them the money and then later changed his mind. That would be like if I entered SSPX seminary, gave all my money to them, then decided I didn't like it there and tried to get it back after it was spent. Canonical irregularity? That's the entirety of the Traditional movement. Lots of people don't like the Dimond brothers ... but I fail to see any CIA connection.
Core problem is their bitter zeal. They've become bitter against a lot of the people who regularly attack them. As far as doctrine, I think they're right on most of their points. It's just that they have crossed the line from zeal into the realm of bitter zeal, and that suffices to explain the vast majority of these criticisms.
-
The one post on the blog was just a lot of conjecture and personal criticisms based on one guy's experience with them. I haven't looked at his videos yet, but it looks like more of the same as the guy has a personal vendetta against them due to his experience with MHFM. I'm not saying he's being dishonest, I just don't see how any of this shows that they're anything more than trad zealots.
These are merely criticisms of the Dimonds ... with not a shred of evidence here tying them to the CIA. Deleting negative comments? Lots of people do that. They're mean? OK. And? Where's the tie to the CIA? Hoyle gave them the money and then later changed his mind. That would be like if I entered SSPX seminary, gave all my money to them, then decided I didn't like it there and tried to get it back after it was spent. Canonical irregularity? That's the entirety of the Traditional movement. Lots of people don't like the Dimond brothers ... but I fail to see any CIA connection.
Core problem is their bitter zeal. They've become bitter against a lot of the people who regularly attack them. As far as doctrine, I think they're right on most of their points. It's just that they have crossed the line from zeal into the realm of bitter zeal, and that suffices to explain the vast majority of these criticisms.
Exactly. I know personally that they don't "approve" any comments I've made through disqus on their articles and I've had my comments deleted off of their YT. So what?
And they have a right to defend themselves from critics, which is why they put out their exposes on various trad figurehead who not only attack them, but are also causing their own confusion in traditional Catholicism. Do they cross a line at times? Yes, certainly. But that doesn't make them CIA
-
8. As someone pointed out in another thread they show people how to make a contract with Satan in their 3 hour magician video, if they had any prudence they would leave that out.
I rewatched that video this week, and I had a similar initial impression, but, what's there really doesn't show you anything except some idiot talking about how he read Crowley's book, put down a salt circle with candles, and signed a statement (which was blurred out) with his blood when he "felt" a presence. It didn't lay out any of the other details, so it's not as though they left in anything that could be legitimately replicated.
2. If one looks at both sides of the lawsuit with Hoyle and not just believing what the Dimonds say about it, the Dimonds don't really come out smelling like roses.
You're right, it doesn't. But neither does the lawsuit that the SSPV and other sede clergy underwent with the SSPX regarding the possession of property, but the court ruled as it did. Same with the Dimonds, the court found Hoyle's claim as illegitimate and ruled in favor of the Dimonds. Maybe it was questionable morally, but its not as if they did anything illegal or "swindled" the man.
6. They've been pointed out by several people how they are wrong about JPII being the Antichrist based on the Church Fathers and just common sense but Dimonds still push it. Why? Sounds like an agenda to me.
I see no agenda there, just informed opinion. I've watched all of their JPII claims, and they have a pretty solid case for him being AN Antichrist, but he misses quite a few marks as THE Antichrist. This one can be chocked up to just poor judgment, not some conscious decision to lead people astray, as JPII was certainly a wicked man spiritually. When Antichrist does come, he will be like Christ and worshipped as such. Not just some antipope preaching heretical, Masonic doctrine.
-
The one post on the blog was just a lot of conjecture and personal criticisms based on one guy's experience with them. I haven't looked at his videos yet, but it looks like more of the same as the guy has a personal vendetta against them due to his experience with MHFM. I'm not saying he's being dishonest, I just don't see how any of this shows that they're anything more than trad zealots.
Exactly. I know personally that they don't "approve" any comments I've made through disqus on their articles and I've had my comments deleted off of their YT. So what?
And they have a right to defend themselves from critics, which is why they put out their exposes on various trad figurehead who not only attack them, but are also causing their own confusion in traditional Catholicism. Do they cross a line at times? Yes, certainly. But that doesn't make them CIA
Oh, hello. What the dimonds did to Jorge is DETRACTION & it's a MORTAL sin, and for those dimondites who agree with what the dimonds did are responsible also. You don't go around exposing CONFESSED sins. Hopefully they publicly apologize to him soon or judgment day isn't going to be pretty.
-
Oh, hello. What the dimonds did to Jorge is DETRACTION & it's a MORTAL sin, and for those dimondites who agree with what the dimonds did are responsible also. You don't go around exposing CONFESSED sins. Hopefully they publicly apologize to him soon or judgment day isn't going to be pretty.
And if they did that, God help them, that is truly evil. But that doesn't make them CIA, just wicked zealots.
-
And if they did that, God help them, that is truly evil. But that doesn't make them CIA, just wicked zealots.
Hi, I didn't say they were cia. But this did happen.
Coronavirus Fight. MHFM (schismatic-home-aloner) FULL emails & Context - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc&t=7s)
-
Hi, I didn't say they were cia. But this did happen.
Coronavirus Fight. MHFM (schismatic-home-aloner) FULL emails & Context - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc&t=7s)
I haven't gotten a chance to watch that yet. But, the tangent about MHFM came from suspicions that they are a CIA operation, which are unfounded. A wicked cult? Maybe, but that still doesn't detract from them putting out some of the best apologetic content.
-
I don't endorse this person who made this video, because I'm a sede and believe in water BAPTISM. Check this out
MhFM’s Brother Michael Dimond Plagiarizing St Alphonsus Liguori - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axa9sYFDYes)
-
Yes, yes, the Dimonds aren't perfect. I know many don't like them, but that doesn't prove they're CIA.
-
Yes, yes, the Dimonds aren't perfect. I know many don't like them, but that doesn't prove they're CIA.
Yikes! Why do you keep repeating yourself? I didn't say they were CIA!!!! I don't support them. I believed in water baptism & was a sede before they even showed up on the internet. I attend Mass. I think most of the dimondites don't attend Mass, just like the dimonds, right? Don't forget everyone, Ibranyi (no I don't support Ibranyi) was the one who converted them to sede.
-
Hi, I didn't say they were cia. But this did happen.
We were speaking only of the allegation that they are CiA, for which there's no shred of evidence. IF this is true, then it's absolutely despicable. At the same time, we have to be careful of spreading THIS around without evidence of the Dimonds' wrongdoing.
Now, this letter they wrote to someone named "Mari" wasn't really public ... until someone posted its contents in a Youtube video. So in a way, the video itself is a detraction against the Dimond brothers ... for committing detraction. It's also inexplicable that this guy then publishes (I assume he himself published it) an hour's worth of private correspondence between himself and the Dimond brothers ... which he'd only do if he had some serious ax to grind against them. Dimonds seem to justify this grave detraction because the man had become some "enemy of the truth" (aka disagreed with them on some of their opinions ... which the Dimonds tend to equate with "the truth", which is a large part of where their bitter spirit comes from).
In any case, there's no signature on this "Mari" docuмent, so anyone could have typed it up just to smear the Dimond brothers. So we have to be careful with that also.
-
Yikes! Why do you keep repeating yourself? I didn't say they were CIA!!!!
Because we're basically trying to tell your point about not liking them has nothing to do with what we were actually discussing. You've decided to go on some smear campaign against them.
-
I don't endorse this person who made this video, because I'm a sede and believe in water BAPTISM. Check this out
This is just dumb. Everyone knows they took a lot of the material for their Hell video from St. Alphonsus. But they put it together with a lot of visual that made it extremely compelling. It's a tremendous video. What are they supposed to do, stop the continuity of the narrative every 30 seconds and say "St. Alphonsus wrote ..."? That would have killed the effect of the video. They were trying to do a great service to souls by putting the video together. So, did St. Alphonsus' estate lose some royalty money because of this plagiarism? Did the Dimonds make money off this video? St. Alphonsus wanted his material used to benefit souls, and I'm sure he's pleased with the video. He was not an ego guy who demanded credit and attribution.
-
This is just dumb. Everyone knows they took a lot of the material for their Hell video from St. Alphonsus. But they put it together with a lot of visual that made it extremely compelling. It's a tremendous video. What are they supposed to do, stop the continuity of the narrative every 30 seconds and say "St. Alphonsus wrote ..."? That would have killed the effect of the video. They were trying to do a great service to souls by putting the video together. So, did St. Alphonsus' estate lose some royalty money because of this plagiarism? Did the Dimonds make money off this video? St. Alphonsus wanted his material used to benefit souls, and I'm sure he's pleased with the video. He was not an ego guy who demanded credit and attribution.
Most people I have talked were surprised about it, so you are wrong. They should've said at the beginning of their video that they are reading from St. Alphonsus, why is that so hard?
-
For all that people accuse the Dimond Brothers of being bitter and uncharitable, and in some cases it's a legitimate criticism, there's an equal amount of people harboring hatred for the Dimond Brothers. I've seen as much nasty uncharitable stuff written about them and against them than I have seen them write. It's called hypocrisy.
Yes, they have crossed over into bitter zeal, and have adopted a schismatic mentality out of a zeal for purity of true doctrine that Satan was able to sidetrack and derail, but they have also done a lot of good and spread a lot of truth and good doctrine, and we should acknowledge BOTH, in the interests of both charity and justice. I pray for them regularly that God will help them overcome the bitter zeal into which they have fallen. But for the grace of God, so would we go. And in fact, most of their bitter enemies are just as guity of bitterness and lack of charity against them.
-
This is just dumb. Everyone knows they took a lot of the material for their Hell video from St. Alphonsus. But they put it together with a lot of visual that made it extremely compelling. It's a tremendous video. What are they supposed to do, stop the continuity of the narrative every 30 seconds and say "St. Alphonsus wrote ..."? That would have killed the effect of the video. They were trying to do a great service to souls by putting the video together. So, did St. Alphonsus' estate lose some royalty money because of this plagiarism? Did the Dimonds make money off this video? St. Alphonsus wanted his material used to benefit souls, and I'm sure he's pleased with the video. He was not an ego guy who demanded credit and attribution.
plagiarism is a sin. Didn't you know that?
-
Because we're basically trying to tell your point about not liking them has nothing to do with what we were actually discussing. You've decided to go on some smear campaign against them.
No, just warning people.
-
plagiarism is a sin. Didn't you know that?
Don't be a bitter spiteful fool. This is more performance than plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you steal the hard work of someone else for your own personal benefit or enrichment. They put together a video in the service of souls and give it away for free.
-
No, just warning people.
Just stop your BS. People don't need you to warn them. Most of the people on this site hate them and your "services" are unnecessary. You obviously harbor great spite toward them yourself.
-
We were speaking only of the allegation that they are CiA, for which there's no shred of evidence. IF this is true, then it's absolutely despicable. At the same time, we have to be careful of spreading THIS around without evidence of the Dimonds' wrongdoing.
Now, this letter they wrote to someone named "Mari" wasn't really public ... until someone posted its contents in a Youtube video. So in a way, the video itself is a detraction against the Dimond brothers ... for committing detraction. It's also inexplicable that this guy then publishes (I assume he himself published it) an hour's worth of private correspondence between himself and the Dimond brothers ... which he'd only do if he had some serious ax to grind against them. Dimonds seem to justify this grave detraction because the man had become some "enemy of the truth" (aka disagreed with them on some of their opinions ... which the Dimonds tend to equate with "the truth", which is a large part of where their bitter spirit comes from).
In any case, there's no signature on this "Mari" docuмent, so anyone could have typed it up just to smear the Dimond brothers. So we have to be careful with that al
No, detraction is a mortal sin. don't you know that? Don't tell the dimonds your sins everyone, be careful.
-
Just stop your BS. People don't need you to warn them. Most of the people on this site hate them and your "services" are unnecessary. You obviously harbor great spite toward them yourself.
Are you ok? Why are you so mad?
-
Just stop your BS. People don't need you to warn them. Most of the people on this site hate them and your "services" are unnecessary. You obviously harbor great spite toward them yourself.
You are guilty of rash judgment, you better stop now! I don't hate people, that's a mortal sin, so shut up! I have a moral obligation to warn people to not tell them their sins, they aren't priests.
-
Just stop your BS. People don't need you to warn them. Most of the people on this site hate them and your "services" are unnecessary. You obviously harbor great spite toward them yourself.
Nice language.
-
You are guilty of rash judgment, you better stop now! I don't hate people, that's a mortal sin, so shut up! I have a moral obligation to warn people to not tell them their sins, they aren't priests.
Everyone and their mother in tradlandia knows that they are not priests. And if someone, of their own volition, admitted a sins to them in conversation, that's between them, the Dimonds, and God. I genuinely do not care about their personal issues with individuals, as they have already shown themselves to possess "bitter zeal" as Lad calls it.
Before you stepped in to make this about your personal vendetta against the Dimonds: the purpose of this little tangent was to discuss whether the claims that they are CIA are true, and so far, no one has provided any evidence to support it. Rather, we've seen people charge in here with speculation and vain accusations about them, which, honestly, makes me think they are closer to the truth than not: "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." [St. Matt. 5:11-12]
And I'm no Dimondite or apologist for them, just to make that clear.
-
No, detraction is a mortal sin. don't you know that? Don't tell the dimonds your sins everyone, be careful.
Stop patronizing me. You don't know the first thing about detraction, and I've studied plenty of moral theology.
First of all, detraction is not a MORTAL sin. Calling it mortal sin is for you to pretend to read the internal forum. Talk about being judgmental. I'm denouncing your behavior and not the state of your soul, which is known to God alone.
So we're talking about grave matter, and only they, God, and their confessor can determine whether the sin was mortal.
Furthermore, not all detraction is grave mattter. Detraction about a small fault is typically venial, and detraction about a serious fault would be grave matter.
And "detraction" is permitted when charity or justice require it. So, for instance, if I alone saw someone committing murder, I am not only permitted but even required by justice to reveal those faults.
If I happened to see someone looking at child pornography, I should blow the whistle on that person due to their being a threat to others ... out of charity toward any potential future victims.
So revealing someone's grave fault may even be required by justice and/or charity. There are situations where the good of others or the public good requires it.
I have no doubt but that the Dimond Brothers (if in fact they did this thing ... thus far we just have a Youtube video with an ax to grind against the Dimond Brothers, and we all know that everything we see on the internet is true), I have no doubt but that they considered these revelations of the man's sins to be justified because they considered him a public enemy of the truth. In fact, they pretty much said that in the letter to this Mari. I have no reason to believe that they would knowingly and deliberately commit a mortal sin, and do so publicly. I believe that they were objectively wrong in their assessment of the situation, but it's not possible for anyone to impute "MORTAL" sin to someone else in the internal forum as you do here. So, for instance, it's common practice in Catholic apologetics works to call out the vices and perversions of some of the heresiarchs and enemies of the faith, such as Luther or Henry VIII, and that is to serve the public good and to militate against the damage done by their heresies. And it's perfectly justified. Somehow the Dimond Brothers came to the conclusion that this individual was in the same category and that exposing the truth about his personal life would discredit him in order to offset the damage done by his heresies and errors. It's a separate issue that they tend to objectively exaggerate the gravity of errors, too swiftly characterizing the errors of others as heresy. In their mind, they classifed this Jorge as being made of the same cloth as a Martin Luther. Detraction being a sin derives from the right of each individual to their good name, but they have no right to use their good name in the perpetration of evil, to harm the faith, to injure other individuals. Again, if I alone know someone is a pedophile and that this pedophile uses the lack of suspicion about him to prey on children, that person loses the right to his good name in that it would be used as a weapon to harm others. Same thing with Martin Luther and the like. If people believed that he were some kind of great saint or mystic, they might be more readily persuaded of his heresies, and so they have no right to that reputation or that good name to destroy souls. I have no doubt but that the Dimonds persuaded themselves that this was the case in their situation. I disagree and I think that they were mistaken in that judgment and that this was an objectively grave thing to do.
But you cross several lines by claiming it's a mortal sin. You've committed a crime of detraction yourself. And the person who put out this video is DOING THE EXACT SAME THING ... committing detraction against the Dimond Brothers by revealing their grave detraction. And they're probably doing it with the exact same motivation, because they feel that the public good requires it to discredit the "errors" of the Dimonds. This is precisely what YOU are doing. You ... and the person who put out this video ... are ALL doing the exact same thing, revealing the grave faults of another because you believe the public good justifies it, to "warn" people, as you yourself put it. Well, the Dimonds believed themselves justified in "warning" people against Jorge.
You do know, right, that it's also grave detraction to reveal the grave detraction committed by someone else, right? And so you're going around spreading this video? Only justification might be to undo the damage done to someone else's good name. But this video does nothing of the sort but just goes into all kinds of detail about the grave sins committed by Jorge. So spreading this video around is not only detracting against the Dimonds but also further detraction against Jorge.
So you needn't lecture me about detraction, as you clearly don't understand all the finer points regarding detraction, nor do you seem to know what MORTAL sin is and that you cannot accuse someone of mortal sin in the internal forum.
Charity and justice require the above analysis of the situation, that likely the Dimonds believed that they were justified in revealing the truth about this man's sins for the reasons stated above, even if mistaken about the justification, and that they did not therefore necessarily commit MORTAL sin.
-
And I'm no Dimondite or apologist for them, just to make that clear.
No, you're just trying to be charitable and just. Some people despise the Dimonds so much that they refuse to acknowledge even their virtues, feeling the need to liken them to incarnate devils. You try to be fair and balanced, giving credit where credit is due, and disagreeing with what you find fault with.
Same holds with Father Cekada. At one point he even personally attacked me in public. And I find his assessment of the Schiavo situation to be utterly reprehensible. Nevertheless, he's also written and said a lot of great things, and I give him credit for those. I'm not going to say that all his books and all his works are garbage because I disagreed with SOME of them or because he attacked me at one point.
This need to be either ALL for or ALL against anyone is a terrible thing that the devil uses to manipulate people. People tend to almost literally "demonize" certain individuals that they disagree with, whether it's the Dimond Brothers, Father Cekada, or Father Feeney ... where in their eyes they can do nothing good and nothing right.
-
This is just dumb. Everyone knows they took a lot of the material for their Hell video from St. Alphonsus. But they put it together with a lot of visual that made it extremely compelling. It's a tremendous video. What are they supposed to do, stop the continuity of the narrative every 30 seconds and say "St. Alphonsus wrote ..."? That would have killed the effect of the video. They were trying to do a great service to souls by putting the video together. So, did St. Alphonsus' estate lose some royalty money because of this plagiarism? Did the Dimonds make money off this video? St. Alphonsus wanted his material used to benefit souls, and I'm sure he's pleased with the video. He was not an ego guy who demanded credit and attribution.
I know people who have bought cds from them years ago and have a copy, so yeah, they did make money off of it! Thank you St. Alphonsus for Preparation for Death book. Microsoft Word - pfd1.doc (docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu) (http://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1696-1787,_De_Ligorio_Alphonsus,_Preparation_For_Death_Part_1,_EN.pdf)
-
Everyone and their mother in tradlandia knows that they are not priests. And if someone, of their own volition, admitted a sins to them in conversation, that's between them, the Dimonds, and God. I genuinely do not care about their personal issues with individuals, as they have already shown themselves to possess "bitter zeal" as Lad calls it.
Before you stepped in to make this about your personal vendetta against the Dimonds: the purpose of this little tangent was to discuss whether the claims that they are CIA are true, and so far, no one has provided any evidence to support it. Rather, we've seen people charge in here with speculation and vain accusations about them, which, honestly, makes me think they are closer to the truth than not: "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you." [St. Matt. 5:11-12]
And I'm no Dimondite or apologist for them, just to make that clear.
Be careful people who are out there, don't tell the dimonds your sins. It's a mortal sin that they exposed personal sins that were confessed to a valid ordained priest. You who agree with what the dimonds did are also guilty for going along with it. Wake UP!
-
I know people who have bought cds from them years ago and have a copy, so yeah, they did make money off of it! Thank you St. Alphonsus for Preparation for Death book. Microsoft Word - pfd1.doc (docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu) (http://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1696-1787,_De_Ligorio_Alphonsus,_Preparation_For_Death_Part_1,_EN.pdf)
Oh, get a life already. They sold their CDs basically for break-even, what it cost to manufacture and ship them, and at the same time they made all this stuff available for free. I used to look at their catalogues, and it was something ridiculous like bundles of 10 CDs for $10. Even if they were to have made money, it wouldn't have been for their own PERSONAL enrichment but so they could fund more things they were doing to benefit souls, as they believe. They're not driving around in Mercedes Benzes or living in a $50 million dollar religious house.
-
Be careful people who are out there, don't tell the dimonds your sins. It's a mortal sin that they exposed personal sins that were confessed to a valid ordained priest. You who agree with what the dimonds did are also guilty for going along with it. Wake UP!
I say this in Charity. Take care, hope you all have a Blessed Easter.
-
Oh, get a life already. They sold their CDs basically for break-even, what it cost to manufacture and ship them, and at the same time they made all this stuff available for free. I used to look at their catalogues, and it was something ridiculous like bundles of 10 CDs for $10. Even if they were to have made money, it wouldn't have been for their own PERSONAL enrichment but so they could fund more things they were doing to benefit souls, as they believe. They're not driving around in Mercedes Benzes or living in a $50 million dollar religious house.
I do have a life. Rash judgment again. Are you ok?
-
It's a mortal sin that they exposed personal sins that were confessed to a valid ordained priest. You who agree with what the dimonds did are also guilty for going along with it. Wake UP!
So we have yet another Pharisee on this forum. Join the club. Maybe we should get you guys your own forum. This is the exact SAME Pharsiaical mode of thought as we saw with several others here recently. This kind of garbage is really starting to make me sick to my stomach.
First of all, his having confessed the sins to a priest has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not as if the Dimonds were eavesdropping outside of the confessional and violating the seal of Confession. He independently revealed his sins to them outside of Confession. Not would it be any LESS detraction had he NOT confessed his sins to a priest at all.
But, even after you've been set straight about accusing others of "mortal sin", you persist in your slander.
And, finally, there's that "You who agree with what the Dimonds did are also guilty for going along with it" garbage that we've been getting from the other resident Pharisees. First they lie and accuse us of "agreeing" with it. I made it quite clear that I disagreed with their assessment of the situation, while at the same time, as charity and justice require, explained why it's possible that they did not commit any mortal sin, but were merely mistaken in how they formed their conscience on the matter. THEN this latest "soul reader" also declares US "guilty". This is like deja vu all over again with the whole marijuana thread, and it's really starting to demoralize me about Traditional Catholicism.
-
I do have a life. Rash judgment again. Are you ok?
So you don't understand figures of speech?
-
If I adopted the same attitude as gemma here, I would declare her guilty of mortal sin for committing detraction against the Dimond Brothers. She said that detraction is a mortal sin. So she's revealing the mortal sin committed by someone else by spreading the video around. Ergo, she's committing the mortal sin of detraction.
If I knew that someone had committed detraction, and I had no justification for revealing it, I would consider myself guilty of detraction for revealing the detraction. There's no difference there. "Hey, that guy over there just committed the mortal sin of detraction."
-
So we have yet another Pharisee on this forum. Join the club. Maybe we should get you guys your own forum. This is the exact SAME Pharsiaical mode of thought as we saw with several others here recently. This kind of garbage is really starting to make me sick to my stomach.
First of all, his having confessed the sins to a priest has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not as if the Dimonds were eavesdropping outside of the confessional and violating the seal of Confession. He independently revealed his sins to them outside of Confession. Not would it be any LESS detraction had he NOT confessed his sins to a priest at all.
But, even after you've been set straight about accusing others of "mortal sin", you persist in your slander.
And, finally, there's that "You who agree with what the Dimonds did are also guilty for going along with it" garbage that we've been getting from the other resident Pharisees. First they lie and accuse us of "agreeing" with it. I made it quite clear that I disagreed with their assessment of the situation, while at the same time, as charity and justice require, explained why it's possible that they did not commit any mortal sin, but were merely mistaken in how they formed their conscience on the matter. THEN this latest "soul reader" also declares US "guilty". This is like deja vu all over again with the whole marijuana thread, and it's really starting to demoralize me about Traditional Catho
Most of the dimondites on twitter agree with the dimonds, one of them even made a video about Jorge. Check out Dimond Data on youtube. People who support the dimonds and don't agree with what they did have to tell the dimonds that it was wrong or they will be guilty of the sin of omission, they should really say something because it's going to be a bad day for them on judment day.
-
If I adopted the same attitude as gemma here, I would declare her guilty of mortal sin for committing detraction against the Dimond Brothers. She said that detraction is a mortal sin. So she's revealing the mortal sin committed by someone else by spreading the video around. Ergo, she's committing the mortal sin of detraction.
If I knew that someone had committed detraction, and I had no justification for revealing it, I would consider myself guilty of detraction for revealing the detraction. There's no difference there. "Hey, that guy over there just committed the mortal sin of detractiNo
No, you are wrong. It's out of charity to warn people.
-
So you don't understand figures of speech?
Playing games? Anything to weasel out of it huh? Let's make a joke about it. Immature
-
Most of the dimondites on twitter agree with the dimonds, one of them even made a video about Jorge. Check out Dimond Data on youtube. People who support the dimonds and don't agree with what they did have to tell the dimonds that it was wrong or they will be guilty of the sin of omission, they should really say something because it's going to be a bad day for them on judment day.
So then go send them an email and tell them all about it.
mhfm1@aol.com
-
So then go send them an email and tell them all about it.
mhfm1@aol.com
They do know. They even have a lame response for their actions too.
Enjoy this video everyone :) Preparation For Death Or Considerations On The Eternal Truths, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Part 1 Of 2 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyTGGPBfB8)
-
Enjoy this video everyone :) Preparation For Death Or Considerations On The Eternal Truths, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Part 1 Of 2 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyTGGPBfB8)
One of my absolute favorites
-
Playing games? Anything to weasel out of it huh? Let's make a joke about it. Immature
Oh, please give it a rest. "Get a life" means "go find something better to do with your time" [than constantly attacking the Dimonds], and is not some "judgment" that you do not "have a life". I know nothing about you other than what you've posted here.
-
Oh, please give it a rest. "Get a life" means "go find something better to do with your time" [than constantly attacking the Dimonds], and is not some "judgment" that you do not "have a life". I know nothing about you other than what you've posted here.
I do have a life & I have a moral obligation to warn people to be careful & do not tell the dimonds their sins. Some of their followers really do think they are the 2 witnesses (lol) so is that why they act like that and "confess" their sins to them? Anyways....JP II is NOT the anti-christ, lol. The antichrist is suppose to kill the 2 witnesses in Apocalypse chapter 11, why don't they mention that? Oh, maybe because they are still here and JP II is dead & it doesn't fit their ideas.
-
I do have a life & I have a moral obligation to warn people to be careful ...
And the Dimonds felt they had a moral obligation to warn people about Jorge. If they committed the "mortal sin" of detraction, the so have you. It cuts both ways.
Chief hallmark of the Pharisees is their persistence in justifying themselves even after they've been admonished and rebuked.
-
And the Dimonds felt they had a moral obligation to warn people about Jorge. If they committed the "mortal sin" of detraction, the so have you. It cuts both ways.
Chief hallmark of the Pharisees is their persistence in justifying themselves even after they've been admonished and rebuked.
Warn people about private confessed sins? You have it all wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Did you watch the video? You must not understand that it's a mortal sin they have committed. Believe what you want, I'm right you're wrong.
-
And the Dimonds felt they had a moral obligation to warn people about Jorge. If they committed the "mortal sin" of detraction, the so have you. It cuts both ways.
Chief hallmark of the Pharisees is their persistence in justifying themselves even after they've been admonished and rebuked.
Show me where Jorge was telling people to commit mortal sins? You have no idea what you are talking about. Keep calling me names, you will be judged.
-
And the Dimonds felt they had a moral obligation to warn people about Jorge. If they committed the "mortal sin" of detraction, the so have you. It cuts both ways.
Chief hallmark of the Pharisees is their persistence in justifying themselves even after they've been admonished and rebuked.
Lol. Telling people Jorge's private CONFESSED sins over a disagreement over covid? They just didn't like the fact Jorge didn't want to go along with them about covid because their family member was sick with it, sounds cultish to me. It wasn't over a dogma issue.
-
Lol. Telling people Jorge's private CONFESSED sins over a disagreement over covid? They just didn't like the fact Jorge didn't want to go along with them about covid because their family member was sick with it, sounds cultish to me. It wasn't over a dogma issue.
Coronavirus Fight. MHFM (schismatic-home-aloner) FULL emails & Context - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc&t=7s)
-
First off I want to apologize to everyone for being a big piece to this conflict and so close to the Ressurection of The Lord. My goal was to give fair warnings about the Dimonds since I know some people are very persuaded that they are the go to for full truth in these troubling times (maybe not so many here) we are in and I was once disillusioned by them about a decade or so ago because they do say a lot of true things but have seen the cult-like mentality that a lot of their followers have as Gemma alluded to.
For the record I did say the CIA comment was probably wrong and never claimed the list I made pointed to them being CIA but that there was at least something very suspect about them (in general), sorry for any confusion. The CIA comment was just a hunch that I personally had, due to the list and a couple other things (like them allegedly being crypto-Jєωs, and some things they did in the debate with Eli)
Funnily enough...I think you're all correct (Lad, DL, Gemma) in some ways and I'll briefly explain...
Ladislaus, I always appreciate your very often balanced posts although I do disagree with some of the things you say now and then. I should have chosen my words much more carefully or explained in better detail what I meant. I do think we need to be careful about throwing the pharisee tag on people as well though, I do know there can (and likely is) a fine line between being a good Catholic who wants to protect The Faith and being a bitter pharisee. I mostly lurk but I don't really see a pharisaical attitude with people on here although I'm sure there are a couple here and there.
Gemma is correct in saying that people should be warned about Dimonds (or any potentially dangerous figures) but then stepped out of bounds a little by getting too personal with Lad. Right idea, wrong execution imo. I do feel somewhat responsible for that though. Sorry if I got you "riled up" Gemma.
DL, much like Ladislaus, I tend to find you balanced most of the time but I do disagree with the comment about them probably having the truth because they are attacked by many people and then the St. Matthew Bible Quote. Although this is true in some cases if we applied that to everyone then anyone who was attacked a lot (Luther, Calvin, etc.) must have had the truth. Prots make the case for Luther being attacked by The Church that that means he must have been right and the "evil" Church was trying to suppress the truth. Just pointing that out so we're careful about our application of that quote.
Hopefully that clears some things up, again sorry for my part in this.
-
I have a moral obligation to warn people
No, only a superior of someone would have a moral obligation. Your “warnings” (if they were legitimate) fall under fraternal correction and this has limits.
-
No, only a superior of someone would have a moral obligation. Your “warnings” (if they were legitimate) fall under fraternal correction and this has limits.
Since you think I am out of line then go ahead and reveal your sins to them in secret. Don't take my advice. You obviously have no idea what the pattern is, but just ignore me.
-
First off I want to apologize to everyone for being a big piece to this conflict and so close to the Ressurection of The Lord. My goal was to give fair warnings about the Dimonds since I know some people are very persuaded that they are the go to for full truth in these troubling times (maybe not so many here) we are in and I was once disillusioned by them about a decade or so ago because they do say a lot of true things but have seen the cult-like mentality that a lot of their followers have as Gemma alluded to.
For the record I did say the CIA comment was probably wrong and never claimed the list I made pointed to them being CIA but that there was at least something very suspect about them (in general), sorry for any confusion. The CIA comment was just a hunch that I personally had, due to the list and a couple other things (like them allegedly being crypto-Jєωs, and some things they did in the debate with Eli)
Funnily enough...I think you're all correct (Lad, DL, Gemma) in some ways and I'll briefly explain...
Ladislaus, I always appreciate your very often balanced posts although I do disagree with some of the things you say now and then. I should have chosen my words much more carefully or explained in better detail what I meant. I do think we need to be careful about throwing the pharisee tag on people as well though, I do know there can (and likely is) a fine line between being a good Catholic who wants to protect The Faith and being a bitter pharisee. I mostly lurk but I don't really see a pharisaical attitude with people on here although I'm sure there are a couple here and there.
Gemma is correct in saying that people should be warned about Dimonds (or any potentially dangerous figures) but then stepped out of bounds a little by getting too personal with Lad. Right idea, wrong execution imo. I do feel somewhat responsible for that though. Sorry if I got you "riled up" Gemma.
DL, much like Ladislaus, I tend to find you balanced most of the time but I do disagree with the comment about them probably having the truth because they are attacked by many people and then the St. Matthew Bible Quote. Although this is true in some cases if we applied that to everyone then anyone who was attacked a lot (Luther, Calvin, etc.) must have had the truth. Prots make the case for Luther being attacked by The Church that that means he must have been right and the "evil" Church was trying to suppress the truth. Just pointing that out so we're careful about our application of that quote.
Hopefully that clears some things up, again sorry for my part in this.
Lad man started with me. I'm not "riled up" lol just defending myself.
-
Lad man started with me. I'm not "riled up" lol just defending myself.
This is the second time now that you've "LOL"ed. It's rather disgraceful. So you're so concerned and moved by charity that this is your reaction.
Like the typical Pharisee, you refuse to desist from your behavior but double down instead.
Sorry, EWPJ, but the charge of Pharisaism stands. Pharisees judge the internal forum (something which even the Church doesn't do) and impute "mortal sin" to people on a regular basis. Then when someone calls them out on it, they double down and impute the same guilt to those who have rebuked them.
If the Dimond Brothers committed a "mortal sin" of detraction, then so has gemmarose. She's doing the exact same thing. You will be judged by the same standard with which you judge others.
BTW, I hold that what the Dimond Brothers did (if they did it, since the only proof we have is some Youtube video) was objectively gravely wrong and scandalous ... because their reasoning for why they were justified in doing it was faulty. Nevertheless, gemmarose is doing the exact same thing and with the exact same justification, to "warn" people against the Dimond Brothers. Dimond Brothers felt they were justified because they needed to "warn" people about Jorge. It's called hypocrisy, and is one of the hallmarks of Pharisaism.
So you just keep "LOL"ing, gemmarose. Stop feigning that you're moved by charity to spread this garbage. It's clear that you are doing this to smear the Dimond Brothers because you don't like them.
-
No, only a superior of someone would have a moral obligation. Your “warnings” (if they were legitimate) fall under fraternal correction and this has limits.
Like the rest of these Pharisees, she just doubles down and rejects correction of any kind.
-
I do think we need to be careful about throwing the pharisee tag on people as well though, I do know there can (and likely is) a fine line between being a good Catholic who wants to protect The Faith and being a bitter pharisee. I mostly lurk but I don't really see a pharisaical attitude with people on here although I'm sure there are a couple here and there.
Pharisaism is demonstrable when people judge others in the internal forum and impute mortal sin to them. BTW, the Dimond Brothers do this on a regular basis themselves, and they have not been immune to my criticism. Unlike gemmarose, I have written them personally ... and have been chastised by them for it.
In the other recent case here, the alleged smell of marijuana on someone's clothes led to an imputation of mortal sin. I spent several paragraphs explaining a dozen reasons why that might not be the case, but that too was ignored ... and the Pharisees doubled down insisting that she could judge people guilty of mortal sin, and then extended her accusations against those who called her out on it.
Pharisaism is a plague among many Traditional Catholics and it needs to be called out.
-
Gemma is correct in saying that people should be warned about Dimonds (or any potentially dangerous figures) but then stepped out of bounds a little by getting too personal with Lad.
No, she stepped out of bounds by imputing mortal sin to the Dimond Brothers. I really don't care about what she thinks of me. I've had absolutely enough of the soul-readers imputing mortal sin to others. It's actually one of the regular practices of the Dimond Brothers that I have called them out on. They went so far as to declare a couple of deceased people to be in hell.
-
Lol. Telling people Jorge's private CONFESSED sins ...
And for the second time I have to correct you on this also, and yet you persist. Jorge's having confessed his sins has nothing to do with detraction. Even if he had NOT confessed his sins to a priest, the sin would be the same in revealing his sins.
-
Dimond Brothers' Pharisaism:
Well-known priest, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, who appeared on EWTN many times, died on October 3, 2014. He was not a true Catholic. Sadly, Groeschel was a complete heretic and apostate who enthusiastically embraced and promoted the Vatican II apostasy. Groeschel claimed to be a Franciscan, and dressed in traditional garb. Yet, he did not have the true Catholic faith and therefore his externals profited him nothing. He lost his soul for his promotion of heresies and his adherence to the false Vatican II religion to the end.
Here they declare that "[h]e lost his soul". They declare later in that same article that the people at EWTN committed "mortal sin" by putting him on the air.
This is precisely what I'm talking about.
Like gemma, they fail to distinguish between objective heresy and formal (internal forum) sin.
-
Anyone who tells a non-priest their sins, should know there’s no confessional seal. So if such sins get revealed, that’s their own fault for being naive.
-
Anyone who tells a non-priest their sins, should know there’s no confessional seal. So if such sins get revealed, that’s their own fault for being naive.
That of course doesn't excuse detraction, but your point is a good one. If I were to walk around the South Side of Chicago yelling racial slurs, I shouldn't be surprised if they beat me to an inch of my life. That wouldn't excuse their crime, and yet I should have known better.
-
So, as I suggested before, there's always another side to every story, and not everything you see on the internet is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdv2OZgBVg
Some of the key points here.
Jorge himself publicly revealed his struggles with impurity and pornography on his own site ... in 2014, long before MHFM did.
This was much more than about Jorge disagreeing with them about COVID, as gemma claimed, based on a slander by Jorge himself, who apparently has made it his life's work to attack MHFM.
As I suspected, the Dimonds cite St. Thomas Aquinas who (as I was saying above) taught that it's not detraction to reveal sins for the public good (examples cited above).
With all that, the Dimonds should have just left this guy alone. He's obviously imbalanced and, having maybe a thousand followers, doesn't pose that much of a threat. But that part is subjective.
I think that what they did was wrong, and I disagree with his reasoning, but given the information above (that Jorge himself revealed his issues with impurity and porn years before they did) and that this was not just over a disagreement regarding COVID, it would seem that there's real calumny taking place here against the Dimond Brothers ... not only by Jorge but also by those who continue to spread around his video smearing the Dimond Brothers.
As Catholics, followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we are obligated to give others every possible benefit of the doubt before accusing them of grave sin, nor do we have the ability to judge them guilty of mortal sin in the internal forum. Perhaps there's confusion between grave sin (objectively grave matter) and mortal sin (based on the subject components such as full knowledge and advertence, etc.) where the soul loses sanctifying grace.
Alas, the Dimond Brothers themselves do this, and it is one of their chief failings. In this video, the presenter (whose attitudes have been formed by MHFM) also accuses Jorge of mortal sin based on certain things he did.
Neither the Dimonds nor the presenter of this video nor gemmarose are entitled to accuse anyone of "mortal" sin.
This is precisely what is meant by Pharisaism, where people are inclined to assume the worst about others (often based on flimsy evidence and not having all the facts or having listened to both sides of the story). Charity requires that we have skepticism right out of the gate. What do I not know? What's the other side of the story? Then, even armed with all the facts, why did they think this was justified? Alas, this is precisely the spirit with which the Dimond Brothers are infected. They are fond of denouncing people as "bad willed" (again, reading the internal forum), when in most cases people are confused or mistaken or ignorant, and we always out of charity give them the benefit of the doubt. In the citation above, they declare as fact that Fr. Groeschel has lost his soul. Even if he were guilty of formal heresy, then we still have no knowledge of what may have transpired between God and his soul before he passed away. Secondly, whenever the Dimonds see heresy (indeed, Fr. Groeschel made quite a few heretical pronouncements), they presume bad will and presume formal heresy. At one point, they admit that Fr. Groeschel was simply following V2 teaching. There are many, many souls who have embraced various heresies because they THINK it comes from the teaching of the Church, given that the Conciliar Church has been masquerading as the Catholic Church. If you believe that something is taught by the Church, even if you're mistaken about that fact, that is the definition of material heresy. FORMAL refers to the formal motive of faith, to WHY you believe what you believe. Unfortunately, the Dimond Brothers have also adopted the Pharisaical attitude of imputing "bad will" to others instead of assuming good will, as charity requires. Not only do they often use the adjective "bad-willed" in front of heretic, but they also throw in additional amplifiers that after a point sound childish (people are "astounding" heretics or "amazing" heretics, not just run-of-the-mill heretics). This does not mean we do not condemn heresy and condemn bad behavior (in the sense that Bergoglio uses the phrase "Who am I to judge?") but it does mean that we do not judge the internal forum. Even when someone has (perhaps by their own admission) committed mortal sin, charity requires that we look at it under the best light possible (that they were ignorant, or weak, or experiencing some temptations or conditions that we couldn't imagine). We condemn sodomy in no uncertain terms, and should punish it by law, but we also have compassion for the sodomites and give them every benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they were abused themselves and have all kinds of psychological issues or were raised poorly ... in all cases, we assume that they have not received the same graces and protections that we ourselves have had to prevent us from having ourselves become sodomites. Were it not for the grace of God, there would we have gone. That is why the saints could sincerely believe they were the worst of all sinners. They actually BELIEVED this, and it was not some pseudo-pious exercise just to say it, because of this very attitude that I outlined, that they knew their own sins but always gave every benefit of the doubt to others.
We as Traditional Catholics have received so many more graces than others have received, so we need to strive to live up to these graces and have the charity that Our Lord demands from His followers. We are not special or better than everyone else. We received the graces we have received through a completely unmerited free gift from God. We have not deserved any of it. But the more we have received, the more is expected of us. And we should acknowledge this condition of ours in fear and trembling. Most of us belong in hell. Most of us, were it not for the grace of God, are capable of being the most depraved sinners, mass murderers, serial killers, pedophiles, sodomites, and the like. There but for the grace of God go we.
-
Like the rest of these Pharisees, she just doubles down and rejects correction of any kind.
No, I don't need correction, you are wrong. Keep calling me a pharisee, you are guilty the sin of rash judgment. I never said I was perfect and without sin. It's a sin of DETRACTION what they did. That's noy my fault you don't understand.
-
So, as I suggested before, there's always another side to every story, and not everything you see on the internet is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdv2OZgBVg
Some of the key points here.
Jorge himself publicly revealed his struggles with impurity and pornography on his own site ... in 2014, long before MHFM did.
This was much more than about Jorge disagreeing with them about COVID, as gemma claimed, based on a slander by Jorge himself, who apparently has made it his life's work to attack MHFM.
As I suspected, the Dimonds cite St. Thomas Aquinas who (as I was saying above) taught that it's not detraction to reveal sins for the public good (examples cited above).
With all that, the Dimonds should have just left this guy alone. He's obviously imbalanced and, having maybe a thousand followers, doesn't pose that much of a threat. But that part is subjective.
I think that what they did was wrong, and I disagree with his reasoning, but given the information above (that Jorge himself revealed his issues with impurity and porn years before they did) and that this was not just over a disagreement regarding COVID, it would seem that there's real calumny taking place here against the Dimond Brothers ... not only by Jorge but also by those who continue to spread around his video smearing the Dimond Brothers.
As Catholics, followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we are obligated to give others every possible benefit of the doubt before accusing them of grave sin, nor do we have the ability to judge them guilty of mortal sin in the internal forum. Perhaps there's confusion between grave sin (objectively grave matter) and mortal sin (based on the subject components such as full knowledge and advertence, etc.) where the soul loses sanctifying grace.
Alas, the Dimond Brothers themselves do this, and it is one of their chief failings. In this video, the presenter (whose attitudes have been formed by MHFM) also accuses Jorge of mortal sin based on certain things he did.
Neither the Dimonds nor the presenter of this video nor gemmarose are entitled to accuse anyone of "mortal" sin.
This is precisely what is meant by Pharisaism, where people are inclined to assume the worst about others (often based on flimsy evidence and not having all the facts or having listened to both sides of the story). Charity requires that we have skepticism right out of the gate. What do I not know? What's the other side of the story? Then, even armed with all the facts, why did they think this was justified? Alas, this is precisely the spirit with which the Dimond Brothers are infected. They are fond of denouncing people as "bad willed" (again, reading the internal forum), when in most cases people are confused or mistaken or ignorant, and we always out of charity give them the benefit of the doubt. In the citation above, they declare as fact that Fr. Groeschel has lost his soul. Even if he were guilty of formal heresy, then we still have no knowledge of what may have transpired between God and his soul before he passed away. Secondly, whenever the Dimonds see heresy (indeed, Fr. Groeschel made quite a few heretical pronouncements), they presume bad will and presume formal heresy. At one point, they admit that Fr. Groeschel was simply following V2 teaching. There are many, many souls who have embraced various heresies because they THINK it comes from the teaching of the Church, given that the Conciliar Church has been masquerading as the Catholic Church. If you believe that something is taught by the Church, even if you're mistaken about that fact, that is the definition of material heresy. FORMAL refers to the formal motive of faith, to WHY you believe what you believe. Unfortunately, the Dimond Brothers have also adopted the Pharisaical attitude of imputing "bad will" to others instead of assuming good will, as charity requires. Not only do they often use the adjective "bad-willed" in front of heretic, but they also throw in additional amplifiers that after a point sound childish (people are "astounding" heretics or "amazing" heretics, not just run-of-the-mill heretics). This does not mean we do not condemn heresy and condemn bad behavior (in the sense that Bergoglio uses the phrase "Who am I to judge?") but it does mean that we do not judge the internal forum. Even when someone has (perhaps by their own admission) committed mortal sin, charity requires that we look at it under the best light possible (that they were ignorant, or weak, or experiencing some temptations or conditions that we couldn't imagine). We condemn sodomy in no uncertain terms, and should punish it by law, but we also have compassion for the sodomites and give them every benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they were abused themselves and have all kinds of psychological issues or were raised poorly ... in all cases, we assume that they have not received the same graces and protections that we ourselves have had to prevent us from having ourselves become sodomites. Were it not for the grace of God, there would we have gone. That is why the saints could sincerely believe they were the worst of all sinners. They actually BELIEVED this, and it was not some pseudo-pious exercise just to say it, because of this very attitude that I outlined, that they knew their own sins but always gave every benefit of the doubt to others.
We as Traditional Catholics have received so many more graces than others have received, so we need to strive to live up to these graces and have the charity that Our Lord demands from His followers. We are not special or better than everyone else. We received the graces we have received through a completely unmerited free gift from God. We have not deserved any of it. But the more we have received, the more is expected of us. And we should acknowledge this condition of ours in fear and trembling. Most of us belong in hell. Most of us, were it not for the grace of God, are capable of being the most depraved sinners, mass murderers, serial killers, pedophiles, sodomites, and the like. There but for the grace of God go we.
The dimonds lame response from St. Thomas doesn't address the subject. St. Thomas never mentions exposing sins to a religious in confidence. You should get in contact with Jorge and talk to him and his wife before you slander them and accuse him of being "imbalanced"
-
Secondly, whenever the Dimonds see heresy (indeed, Fr. Groeschel made quite a few heretical pronouncements), they presume bad will and presume formal heresy. At one point, they admit that Fr. Groeschel was simply following V2 teaching. There are many, many souls who have embraced various heresies because they THINK it comes from the teaching of the Church, given that the Conciliar Church has been masquerading as the Catholic Church. If you believe that something is taught by the Church, even if you're mistaken about that fact, that is the definition of material heresy.
Breaking my silence to agree with this. Which is what I find most frustrating about MHFM and their followers. The following is one of their "hit pieces" on tradland personalities Dr. Marshall and Jimmy Akin. The presenter doesn't at all distinguish between material and formal heresy and concludes that both are in mortal sin and formal heretics. It is a great example of the type of Pharisaism you're describing.
In the case of Jimmy, they focus on his Mysteries podcast that explores various fringe ideas like multiverse theory or aliens and frame it in such a way to remove it from the speculative forum as if Mr. Akin is consciously denying dogmas of the Church. Which is ironic considering that, based on the good little pamphlet refuting aliens by the Dimonds, they accept a lot of ideas from NASA and mainstream science which deny or contradict Catholic teachings, yet you don't see me or others condemning them for it.
https://youtu.be/L7LNsFth3Rg
-
you are guilty the sin of rash judgment
THIS^^^ is what I'm talking about. Pharisees refuse to accept correction.
This behavior is following a very predictable pattern. After they're corrected, they then soul-read the sins of those who are correcting them. I never once imputed sin to you, just rebuking your behavior, but you refuse to change course and, instead, just double down on it.
-
It's a sin of DETRACTION what they did.
Only God, they, and their confessor know whether what they did was sin. Arguably, it wasn't even detraction because you ignore the fact that Jorge on his own website in 2014 admitted to his issues with impurity and pornography. Secondly, you are doing the same thing that you denounce them for, in spades.
-
Only God, they, and their confessor know whether what they did was sin. Arguably, it wasn't even detraction because you ignore the fact that Jorge on his own website in 2014 admitted to his issues with impurity and pornography. Secondly, you are doing the same thing that you denounce them for, in spades.
Like the dimond's never sin! they still evangelize. How do you know Jorge was telling people to sin? You don't. So stupid, give it up. They committed a mortal sin what they did and their followers who agree with them are guilty too. The other supporter's that know what 's going on and don't agree need to speak up and say something because that is called the sin of omission. Period!
-
What's their problem anyways, do they want to be the ONLY website to evangelize against bod & Vatican II? Jorge holds water baptism & he is a sede and believes Vatican II is invalid. What happened to him is a disgrace, it wasn't over a dogma it was about COVID!!!!!! Disgusting.
-
Anyone who tells a non-priest their sins, should know there’s no confessional seal. So if such sins get revealed, that’s their own fault for being naive.
Just speaking in general, and not necessarily regarding the specific case, but one shouldn’t reveal some thing that was shared with them in a confidential manner without good reason even if there isn’t a confession seal. Not saying I know what happened in this particular case
-
Some are deviating away from the thread's question. I heard Bishop Webster was infirm earlier this year. The situation for BOD-deniers looks bleak at this point. Is there no other clergy who hold the Feeneyite position? Certainly strict EENS believers believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the true (EENS-believing) Church...
-
Any update to this?
-
Some are deviating away from the thread's question. I heard Bishop Webster was infirm earlier this year. The situation for BOD-deniers looks bleak at this point. Is there no other clergy who hold the Feeneyite position? Certainly strict EENS believers believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the true (EENS-believing) Church...
You're conflating EENS and BoD. There's a view of BoD (that of a St. Robert Bellarmine for instance) that is not incompatible with EENS per se and has been tolerated by the Church. Regardless, many of the faithful are aware of the problem not only with EENS but also with BoD. Alas, many of the Trad clergy have completely un-Catholic views of EENS, where they believe infidels can be saved (something which no Doctor of the Church and certainly no Father of the Church ever held). Also, the majority of Church Fathers rejected BoD ... so there's that too.
-
:confused: Why is there no anti-BOD version congregation like the SSPX or CMRI? Or is there one I never heard of? I know there's Fr. Dominic Crawford, who apparently runs a cult, and Bishop Neal Webster, who apparently has no online presence, but is there seriously no other bishop? What are we EENS, one-baptism believers supposed to do?
Because BOD is defined and part of the faith. The main proponent against BoD was excommunicated by the last legitimate Pope. I would expect the number of people involved in the movement to continue to shrink until the position disappears all together.
-
Because BOD is defined and part of the faith. The main proponent against BoD was excommunicated by the last legitimate Pope. I would expect the number of people involved in the movement to continue to shrink until the position disappears all together.
What you are saying is completely wrong.
Please read the long post by ladislaus here
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/270/?topicseen
Also, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience not anything he taught. The excommunication was also dubious as it didn't follow proper procedure. The letter wasn't even signed by Pius XII nor entered into the Acta... Nor was he made to renounce anything when he was accepted back into communion.
-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=1&
-
What you are saying is completely wrong.
Please read the long post by ladislaus here
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/270/?topicseen
Also, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience not anything he taught. The excommunication was also dubious as it didn't follow proper procedure. The letter wasn't even signed by Pius XII nor entered into the Acta... Nor was he made to renounce anything when he was accepted back into communion.
He was called to Rome to defend his position which he refused to do, so technically yes disobedience.
-
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=1&
He was called to Rome to defend his position which he refused to do, so technically yes disobedience.
From what I understand his call to Rome didn't tell him why he was being called, and that's not following the canon law, so he rightfully disobeyed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
From what I understand his call to Rome didn't tell him why he was being called, and that's not following the canon law, so he rightfully disobeyed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well it's obvious why he was being called. He was teaching directly contrary to well established Catholic doctrine. Feeney people get really legalistic about this to find a way out of the issue.
-
Well it's obvious why he was being called. He was teaching directly contrary to well established Catholic doctrine. Feeney people get really legalistic about this to find a way out of the issue.
Because the procedure is supposed to be followed. Why do BoD advocates have to rely on twisted facts? The very fact that Feeney was 'excommunicated' for disobedience and not what he taught is an important nuance. Yet BoD'ers seem to think this doesn't matter, because I've seen them regurgitate this 'excommunication' as if anti-BoD was condemned by the Church, it wasn't so.
If anti-BoD was really condemned then they would have excommunicated him for what he taught and not 'disobedience'. It's also suspicious that there were newspaper articles claiming that the Church had 'changed' it's teachings on EENS right after this incident.
Do these small but important facts not matter to you? The TRUTH matters. The reality is that BoD is NOT A DOCTRINE but theological speculation. The Church has never taught it, some theologians 'taught' it (a completely different version from today's mainstream belief on BoD) but their opinions were biased (on perceived authority stemming from Augustine) and emotional.
Ladislaus provides excellent context for this in his long post here. Please read it.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/270/?topicseen
And no it was not 'obvious' (it's obvious but not for the reason you think), if it were they would have stated the reason in the summoning. They wanted to trick people into misunderstanding this entire issue (and subsequently deny the dogma EENS) and they succeeded, as whenever this topic gets brought up, Bod'ers either;
- - ignore the information provided,
- - state that the TRUTH is not a big deal (like you just did "find a way out of the issue") (would you like it if you were unjustly excommunicated?),
- - repeat the statements made by fallible men whilst also ignoring the infallible statements,
- - cannot provide CLEAR doctrine on BoD,
- - twist BoD into something other than what the theologians taught (ie. Jєωs, muslims, pagans and all those who hate Christ can be saved outside the church without knowing or accepting basic articles of faith like the Trinity or the Incarnation (these are DOGMA and are REQUIRED to be saved) and not just limiting BoD to Catechumens in the sense that they (theologians) taught
- - denying that the sacrament of baptism is necessary
- - using downvotes, popular opinion, herd mentality, numbers advantage, and emotional COPE ("it's cruel that these people are going to hell") to push their false doctrine (BoD has never been defined as a doctrine)
Ultimately BoD has corrupt fruit (see Vatican 2) and results with people judging God's justness. If someone dies without baptism they either get brought back to life and baptised (as seen with some Saints) or they were simply never among the elect.
(EDIT: It seems bullet point lists don't work)
-
What you are saying is completely wrong.
Please read the long post by ladislaus here
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/270/?topicseen
Also, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience not anything he taught. The excommunication was also dubious as it didn't follow proper procedure. The letter wasn't even signed by Pius XII nor entered into the Acta... Nor was he made to renounce anything when he was accepted back into communion.
Truth doesn't really matter to many BoDers. They believe it because they want to believe it, often by their own admission. There are another group of BoDers who hold it due to an exaggerated view of papal infallibility, where a dubious docuмent like the so-called Suprema Haec is considered effectively infallible, on the same level as some dogmatic papal bull. Proponents of SH named it thus (from the first two Latin words) to make it sound like it was some Encyclical. But it was merely a letter to Cushing that's of dubious authenticity, and certainly not even part of the authentic Magisterium, as it wasn't even published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis. There was some funny business going on there, as Cushing sat on it for a couple years before releasing it (in the Irish Ecclesiastical Review, which he edited and controlled), strangely RIGHT AFTER the Cardinal who allegedly signed it had died. We have no evidence that this was real and that it wasn't altered. Why wait a couple years to publish it? I have no doubt but that Cushing would normally have published it immediately.
In any case, SH didn't even mention the Sacrament of Baptism, but just referred to belonging to the Church by desire, thereby undermining EENS dogma. Newspaper headlines after SH read, "Church rules that there is salvation outside the Church."
Really the only solid argument would be from Trent, except that I hold (and argue in the link above) that there are serious issues with the BoDer rendering of Trent. Even some honest BoDers have admitted that Trent reads as at most permitting belief in BoD, and that it nowhere actively teaches it. There was no intent in that passage to teach BoD or the "three Baptisms" (except that if you accept the BoDer reading of Trent, there are only two and BoB doesn't even exist). Trent was teaching, against the Prot errors, that justification happens through a combination of the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament (laver) combined with the cooperation of the free will with grace (votum). There's no Canon there teaching, "If someone does not believe that man can be justified by the desire along without the Sacrament of Baptism, let him be anathema." Quite the contrary. To hold that justification can happen without the laver (the logical corollary to the BoDer reading) would be heretical, as Trent itself condemned it as such.
-
From what I understand his call to Rome didn't tell him why he was being called, and that's not following the canon law, so he rightfully disobeyed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
He was in fact stripped of his right to canonical process, where he had a right to be informed of the charges against him so that he could prepare an adequate defense. Father Feeney felt that he was being railroaded by various Modernist heretics entrenched in the Vatican. No, there were no Modernists in the Vatican who would later brings us the glories of Vatican II, right? All pre-V2 hierarchs were perfectly orthodox, right? Cushing: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
-
Yes, and Bishop Cushing is the bishop who signed off on Dr. John Rock, the co-inventor of the Pill; Rock quit attending daily Mass because Paul VI's Humanae Vitae closed the door on Rock's twisted theory that the Pill was "natural" and "moral."
-
Bobby Kennedy and Father Feeney: Religion as American Politics
Bobby Kennedy’s involvement at St. Benedict’s ended abruptly, as the following account attests:
Members of the famous Kennedy family were known to visit (the Center). Jack was running for Congress when he first came, and surprised Father by being able to recite from memory passages of one of his essays. Jack Kennedy came to several lectures and was always gracious and respectful towards Father, who once told him, “Maybe someday you will be the first Catholic president!”
Bobby Kennedy came once as well. However, he was arrogant and confrontational. Father suffered him patiently, until he flippantly sniped, “I know more Protestants who are going to heaven than Catholics!” “That’s not the way to talk to a priest,” Father retorted, and directed the young Kennedy to the door.
It didn’t end there – according to little brother, Teddy Kennedy. In his autobiography, Senator Ted wanted to make sure brother Bobby got credit for his contribution to twentieth-century Catholic doctrinal development - ! The following is a quote from his book. Ted picks up the story from where, after having heard Fr. Leonard speak of “no salvation outside the Church” (and then being shown the door by Fr. Leonard for his disrespect), Bobby runs to dad – Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, and tells him what happened. Says Ted:
[Bobby] discussed it with our father one weekend at the Cape house. I well remember the conversation.
Dad could not believe that Bobby had heard Father Feeney correctly. “But,” he said, “if you feel strongly that you did, I’m going to go into the other room and call Richard. Maybe he’ll want you to go up to Boston and see him.”
“Richard” was Richard Cardinal Cushing. Dad and the cardinal enjoyed a long and profound friendship. . . .
Bobby said he felt strongly indeed. Bang! Dad called up “Richard” and arranged for Bobby to visit him. The cardinal, as nonplussed as Dad, sent some of his people over to hear Father Feeney’s Thursday evening lecture. When he found that my brother was right, Cushing banned Feeney from speaking there; Feeney refused to obey the order, and in September 1949 the archdiocese formally condemned the priest’s teaching. . . . In February 1952, Father Feeney was excommunicated.
Ted’s account of the “end” of Fr. Feeney is, of course, incorrect. But this glib assessment and dismissal serves the purpose that the late Senator had in mind: That of showing the Kennedy “power,” the obeisance of even a Church prelate to their beck and call, and the vilification of this correct and courageous priest for the purpose of “burying” him and his doctrinal cause. How the Kennedy story ultimately played out, with their many and public tragedies and scandals, is a sad and too-familiar narrative. May they rest in peace.
-
So, as I suggested before, there's always another side to every story, and not everything you see on the internet is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdv2OZgBVg
Some of the key points here.
Jorge himself publicly revealed his struggles with impurity and pornography on his own site ... in 2014, long before MHFM did.
This was much more than about Jorge disagreeing with them about COVID, as gemma claimed, based on a slander by Jorge himself, who apparently has made it his life's work to attack MHFM.
As I suspected, the Dimonds cite St. Thomas Aquinas who (as I was saying above) taught that it's not detraction to reveal sins for the public good (examples cited above).
With all that, the Dimonds should have just left this guy alone. He's obviously imbalanced and, having maybe a thousand followers, doesn't pose that much of a threat. But that part is subjective.
I think that what they did was wrong, and I disagree with his reasoning, but given the information above (that Jorge himself revealed his issues with impurity and porn years before they did) and that this was not just over a disagreement regarding COVID, it would seem that there's real calumny taking place here against the Dimond Brothers ... not only by Jorge but also by those who continue to spread around his video smearing the Dimond Brothers.
As Catholics, followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we are obligated to give others every possible benefit of the doubt before accusing them of grave sin, nor do we have the ability to judge them guilty of mortal sin in the internal forum. Perhaps there's confusion between grave sin (objectively grave matter) and mortal sin (based on the subject components such as full knowledge and advertence, etc.) where the soul loses sanctifying grace.
Alas, the Dimond Brothers themselves do this, and it is one of their chief failings. In this video, the presenter (whose attitudes have been formed by MHFM) also accuses Jorge of mortal sin based on certain things he did.
Neither the Dimonds nor the presenter of this video nor gemmarose are entitled to accuse anyone of "mortal" sin.
This is precisely what is meant by Pharisaism, where people are inclined to assume the worst about others (often based on flimsy evidence and not having all the facts or having listened to both sides of the story). Charity requires that we have skepticism right out of the gate. What do I not know? What's the other side of the story? Then, even armed with all the facts, why did they think this was justified? Alas, this is precisely the spirit with which the Dimond Brothers are infected. They are fond of denouncing people as "bad willed" (again, reading the internal forum), when in most cases people are confused or mistaken or ignorant, and we always out of charity give them the benefit of the doubt. In the citation above, they declare as fact that Fr. Groeschel has lost his soul. Even if he were guilty of formal heresy, then we still have no knowledge of what may have transpired between God and his soul before he passed away. Secondly, whenever the Dimonds see heresy (indeed, Fr. Groeschel made quite a few heretical pronouncements), they presume bad will and presume formal heresy. At one point, they admit that Fr. Groeschel was simply following V2 teaching. There are many, many souls who have embraced various heresies because they THINK it comes from the teaching of the Church, given that the Conciliar Church has been masquerading as the Catholic Church. If you believe that something is taught by the Church, even if you're mistaken about that fact, that is the definition of material heresy. FORMAL refers to the formal motive of faith, to WHY you believe what you believe. Unfortunately, the Dimond Brothers have also adopted the Pharisaical attitude of imputing "bad will" to others instead of assuming good will, as charity requires. Not only do they often use the adjective "bad-willed" in front of heretic, but they also throw in additional amplifiers that after a point sound childish (people are "astounding" heretics or "amazing" heretics, not just run-of-the-mill heretics). This does not mean we do not condemn heresy and condemn bad behavior (in the sense that Bergoglio uses the phrase "Who am I to judge?") but it does mean that we do not judge the internal forum. Even when someone has (perhaps by their own admission) committed mortal sin, charity requires that we look at it under the best light possible (that they were ignorant, or weak, or experiencing some temptations or conditions that we couldn't imagine). We condemn sodomy in no uncertain terms, and should punish it by law, but we also have compassion for the sodomites and give them every benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they were abused themselves and have all kinds of psychological issues or were raised poorly ... in all cases, we assume that they have not received the same graces and protections that we ourselves have had to prevent us from having ourselves become sodomites. Were it not for the grace of God, there would we have gone. That is why the saints could sincerely believe they were the worst of all sinners. They actually BELIEVED this, and it was not some pseudo-pious exercise just to say it, because of this very attitude that I outlined, that they knew their own sins but always gave every benefit of the doubt to others.
We as Traditional Catholics have received so many more graces than others have received, so we need to strive to live up to these graces and have the charity that Our Lord demands from His followers. We are not special or better than everyone else. We received the graces we have received through a completely unmerited free gift from God. We have not deserved any of it. But the more we have received, the more is expected of us. And we should acknowledge this condition of ours in fear and trembling. Most of us belong in hell. Most of us, were it not for the grace of God, are capable of being the most depraved sinners, mass murderers, serial killers, pedophiles, sodomites, and the like. There but for the grace of God go we.
Received this reply.
https://twitter.com/_AntonioTorres_/status/1695541120561008852
What to make of this?
-
He was in fact stripped of his right to canonical process, where he had a right to be informed of the charges against him so that he could prepare an adequate defense.
.
From what I read, there weren't any charges against him, so this assertion seems irrelevant. He was summoned to Rome, and ordered to obey the summons by his superiors. As a religious with a vow of obedience, and a Jesuit with a vow of personal obedience to the pope, he is obliged to obey in all things except sin. Now, it is not a sin to go to Rome. Therefore he was obliged to obey.
Father Feeney felt that he was being railroaded by various Modernist heretics entrenched in the Vatican.
What he "felt" is irrelevant. He was disobedient and was rightly excommunicated. It was sacrilegious for him to continue functioning as a priest, saying Mass and performing priestly functions, after being suspended and especially excommunicated and stripped of his faculties.
The idea that he doesn't have to submit to his excommunication because it is unjust is a Jansenist error. I can look it up in the Denzinger if you don't remember, but it's a condemned proposition something along the lines of "One may despise an unjust excommunication." It was invented by the Jansenists.
-
.
From what I read, there weren't any charges against him, so this assertion seems irrelevant. He was summoned to Rome, and ordered to obey the summons by his superiors. As a religious with a vow of obedience, and a Jesuit with a vow of personal obedience to the pope, he is obliged to obey in all things except sin. Now, it is not a sin to go to Rome. Therefore he was obliged to obey.
What he "felt" is irrelevant. He was disobedient and was rightly excommunicated. It was sacrilegious for him to continue functioning as a priest, saying Mass and performing priestly functions, after being suspended and especially excommunicated and stripped of his faculties.
The idea that he doesn't have to submit to his excommunication because it is unjust is a Jansenist error. I can look it up in the Denzinger if you don't remember, but it's a condemned proposition something along the lines of "One may despise an unjust excommunication." It was invented by the Jansenists.
Please do
-
Please do
.
It turns out there are a lot of anathemas against the arguments that Feeneyites use to defend Leonard Feeney against the charge of violating and despising his excommunication. Here's what I found:
Denzinger 613: Priests of Christ, living according to His law and having a knowledge of Scripture and a desire to instruct the people, ought to preach without the impediment of a pretended excommunication. But if the pope or some other prelate orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subject is not obliged to obey. [Note that Mr. Feeney was suspended a divinis, which includes a prohibition to preach, and his faculties were allowed to lapse, without which he could not licitly preach, all of which he violated for decades.]
Denzinger 1441: The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
Denzinger 1547: Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,--false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
Denzinger 357 I declare anathema every heresy and especially that one which disturbs the position of the present Church, which teaches and declares that excommunication is to be despised and that the restrictions of the Church are to be cast aside. Moreover, I promise obedience to Paschal, the supreme Pontiff of the Apostolic See, and to his successors under the testimony of Christ and the Church, affirming what the holy and universal Church affirms and condemning what she condemns.
Denzinger 593: (I think Leonard Feeney used this argument as well) Those who cease to preach or to hear the word of God because of the excommunication of men, are themselves excommunicated, and in the judgment of God they will be considered traitors of Christ.
-
.
It turns out there are a lot of anathemas against the arguments that Feeneyites use to defend Leonard Feeney against the charge of violating and despising his excommunication. Here's what I found:
Denzinger 613: Priests of Christ, living according to His law and having a knowledge of Scripture and a desire to instruct the people, ought to preach without the impediment of a pretended excommunication. But if the pope or some other prelate orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subject is not obliged to obey. [Note that Mr. Feeney was suspended a divinis, which includes a prohibition to preach, and his faculties were allowed to lapse, without which he could not licitly preach, all of which he violated for decades.]
Perhaps I don't understand the first half, but the second half says "not obliged to obey".
Denzinger 1441: The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
"Never are we separated...seem to be expelled... By charity"
This seems to work against you.
Denzinger 1547: Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called "ipso facto" have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,--false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.
Not sure what you mean by this. Ipso facto is a real force, I agree.
Denzinger 357 I declare anathema every heresy and especially that one which disturbs the position of the present Church, which teaches and declares that excommunication is to be despised and that the restrictions of the Church are to be cast aside. Moreover, I promise obedience to Paschal, the supreme Pontiff of the Apostolic See, and to his successors under the testimony of Christ and the Church, affirming what the holy and universal Church affirms and condemning what she condemns.
Ok. I will need to re-examine Feeney's excommunication when I have time. I will change my position according to Church teaching.
Denzinger 593: (I think Leonard Feeney used this argument as well) Those who cease to preach or to hear the word of God because of the excommunication of men, are themselves excommunicated, and in the judgment of God they will be considered traitors of Christ.
So this is a good thing here?
-
Ok. I will need to re-examine Feeney's excommunication when I have time. I will change my position according to Church teaching.
For me, the best information about this is found in the book "The Loyolas and the Cabots." (PDF attached)
From The Introduction...
"The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most
Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never
accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be
noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation
made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished
by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine."
There were plenty of crooks in high places within the Church in the early 20th century to help pave the way for V2.
-
Be Catholic
-
For me, the best information about this is found in the book "The Loyolas and the Cabots." (PDF attached)
From The Introduction...
"The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were
holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics
were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for
having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being
intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most
Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never
accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be
noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation
made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished
by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine."
There were plenty of crooks in high places within the Church in the early 20th century to help pave the way for V2.
So Fr feeney was unjustly but validly excommunicated?
I can admit that it was *valid*, as I do not want to hold to any heresy myself, to risky for my soul. I'll see if I can find time during the week to read the work you cited.
-
.
From what I read, there weren't any charges against him, so this assertion seems irrelevant.
That's the point. They summoned him to Rome for a hearing without stating the charges against him. Canon Law stipulates that he is entitled to be informed of the charges against him so that he can prepare adequately for such a hearing.
-
Meh, St. Athanasius was excommunicated for a time by Liberius, and yet Athanasius was one of the Church's greatest saints and Liberius the first un-canonized pope. Excommunications issued by heretics for holding to and teaching Catholic dogma are indeed to be despised. Pope St. Celestine declared that those who were "excommunicated" by Nestorius from the time Nestorius had begun preaching (publicly professing) heresy were never excommunicated, since those who are excommunicandus (those who "should be excommunicated") cannot excommunicate. Cushing was a manifest heretic, and he orchestrated the excommunication of Father Feeney, when it was he who should have been excommunicated (excommunicandus). These are many of the same scoundrels who within a short time would brings us the glories of Vatican II. I find it ironic that most of the SVs who hold to the principle that manifest heretics are ipso facto outside the Church defend Cushing, who was on record as stating: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." By SV principles, Cushing was deposed, as were Father Feeney's Jesuit superiors (some of their open denials of EENs made Cushing's look tame). Consequently, there was no "disobedience" by Father Feeney, since his superiors are deposed. So, you anti-Feeneyite SVs, what suddenly happened to the principle that manifest heretics are deposed ipso facto when you excoriate Father Feeney for "disobedience"?
-
So Fr feeney was unjustly but validly excommunicated?
I can admit that it was *valid*, as I do not want to hold to any heresy myself, to risky for my soul. I'll see if I can find time during the week to read the work you cited.
If you read that book I attached, you will find he was excommunicated for not shutting up. His superior, Bishop Cushing (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/response-to-neil-obstat/msg875541/?topicseen#msg875541), was the primary instigator who demanded him to shut up about EENS (was bad PR) but Fr. Feeney would not do that. In a nutshell, after all is said and done, after all the slander and lies, you will find out he was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy.
-
If you read that book I attached, you will find he was excommunicated for not shutting up. His superior, Bishop Cushing (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/response-to-neil-obstat/msg875541/?topicseen#msg875541), was the primary instigator who demanded him to shut up about EENS (was bad PR) but Fr. Feeney would not do that. In a nutshell, after all is said and done, after all the slander and lies, you will find out he was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy.
Interesting self-contradiction from the SVs who suddenly attack Father Feeney for disobedience when according to their principles (that manifest heretics are deposed ipso facto), both Cushing and Father Feeney's Jesuit "superiors" were already deposed and therefore not owed any obedience. Care to explain?
-
Interesting self-contradiction from the SVs who suddenly attack Father Feeney for disobedience when according to their principles (that manifest heretics are deposed ipso facto), both Cushing and Father Feeney's Jesuit "superiors" were already deposed and therefore not owed any obedience. Care to explain?
Ha!
Never considered that one. But I think over all that sedes do not really believe in EENS, or they believe in a kinder, gentler version of EENS, which means Fr. Feeney was the heretic and +Cushing at al were the Catholics.
It is remarkable how effectively the smear campaign was, so effective that it still achieves it's purpose even to this day among nearly everyone - including those who *should* know better.
-
If you read that book I attached, you will find he was excommunicated for not shutting up. His superior, Bishop Cushing (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/response-to-neil-obstat/msg875541/?topicseen#msg875541), was the primary instigator who demanded him to shut up about EENS (was bad PR) but Fr. Feeney would not do that. In a nutshell, after all is said and done, after all the slander and lies, you will find out he was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy.
Did bishop cushing and Feeneys jesuit superiors.make their anti EENS.or other heretical statements before the so called excommunication?
Also I don't see how this can be valid if they told him to stop preaching Catholic doctrine.
For example. "Don't preach Catholic dogma". Then he continues to preach truth. "Ok you are excommunicated for (((disobedience)))"
-
Ha!
Never considered that one. But I think over all that sedes do not really believe in EENS, or they believe in a kinder, gentler version of EENS, which means Fr. Feeney was the heretic and +Cushing at al were the Catholics.
It is remarkable how effectively the smear campaign was, so effective that it still achieves it's purpose even to this day among nearly everyone - including those who *should* know better.
I think most traditional Catholica don't *really* believe in EENS, even though St Paul states that ignorance of the gospel is God's will.... And that they are lost.
2Corinthians 4:3-4
And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.
-
To answer the OP's question: No, there's no anti-BOD congregation...and there shouldn't be. We aren't protestants. We don't organize congregations on 1 specific doctrine. We're all catholics, who believe everything.
-
Did bishop cushing and Feeneys jesuit superiors.make their anti EENS.or other heretical statements before the so called excommunication?
Also I don't see how this can be valid if they told him to stop preaching Catholic doctrine.
For example. "Don't preach Catholic dogma". Then he continues to preach truth. "Ok you are excommunicated for (((disobedience)))"
No, they would never say that - even today they would never come out and say that.
What they said is "EENS must be understood the way that the Church understand it", which they mean it only applies to those who know that the Church is the one true Church yet remain outside of it. That's the BS they push and they used against Fr. Feeney.
-
No, they would never say that - even today they would never come out and say that.
What they said is "EENS must be understood the way that the Church understand it", which they mean it only applies to those who know that the Church is the one true Church yet remain outside of it. That's the BS they push and they used against Fr. Feeney.
But the way the Church understands it is straightforward.. if you aren't Catholic and united to the Church you cannot be saved... There is literally dogmatic definitions on this.
-
Did bishop cushing and Feeneys jesuit superiors.make their anti EENS.or other heretical statements before the so called excommunication?
Also I don't see how this can be valid if they told him to stop preaching Catholic doctrine.
For example. "Don't preach Catholic dogma". Then he continues to preach truth. "Ok you are excommunicated for (((disobedience)))"
Yes, the heresies were manifested well before his "excommunication".
Here's a good account of some of what went on, including some openly heretical (and almost unbelievably so) denials of EENS, directly and verbatim, by his Jesuit superiors (in addition go Cushing).
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-case-of-father-feeney/
-
To answer the OP's question: No, there's no anti-BOD congregation...and there shouldn't be. We aren't protestants. We don't organize congregations on 1 specific doctrine. We're all catholics, who believe everything.
Good point ... although there are congregations that emphasize one particular aspect of Catholic teaching over others, and I think that no dogma has been more under assault for the last 500 years or so (since about the "Renaissance") than EENS. Masons/Illuminati declared that EENS had to be gutted in order for their program to have any chance of success, and they gradually dismantled it over the course of 500 years.
We do have the St. Benedict Center and their religious, but they're more inclined toward Motarianism. https://www.saintbenedict.com/
-
But the way the Church understands it is straightforward.. if you aren't Catholic and united to the Church you cannot be saved... There is literally dogmatic definitions on this.
Yes of course, that's why they excommunicated him for disobedience. Maybe they were afraid if they tried to excommunicate him for professing the dogma it would have gone badly for them. The heck of it is, they effectively got most of the population to actually believe he was excommunicated for the preaching of "his understanding" of EENS.
-
Good point ... although there are congregations that emphasize one particular aspect of Catholic teaching over others, and I think that no dogma has been more under assault for the last 500 years or so (since about the "Renaissance") than EENS. Masons/Illuminati declared that EENS had to be gutted in order for their program to have any chance of success, and they gradually dismantled it over the course of 500 years.
We do have the St. Benedict Center and their religious, but they're more inclined toward Motarianism. https://www.saintbenedict.com/
What is this?
-
What is this?
Traditionally-inclined Catholics who remain attached to the Conciliar Church: FSSP, ICK, those who attend what used to be called the Motu Mass, and before that the Indult Mass. Some called these types "Indulterers".
-
Yes, the heresies were manifested well before his "excommunication".
Here's a good account of some of what went on, including some openly heretical (and almost unbelievably so) denials of EENS, directly and verbatim, by his Jesuit superiors (in addition go Cushing).
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-case-of-father-feeney/
This is why one can easily detect heresy against the dogma in most theology manuals and texts beginning as early as the late 19th century. In fact, during his time, Father Feeney wrote to all of the bishops of the world about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and received only three positive responses. In other words, only three of the world’s bishops at that time manifested a positive belief in the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No salvation as it had been defined. It is no wonder that Vatican II went through with virtually no resistance from the Episcopate.
This really shows how little the faith really was in the 40s/50s. Only three bishops with a positive response. It's no wonder the vineyard is going through some much need extreme pruning.
-
And the Dimonds felt they had a moral obligation to warn people about Jorge. If they committed the "mortal sin" of detraction, the so have you. It cuts both ways.
Chief hallmark of the Pharisees is their persistence in justifying themselves even after they've been admonished and rebuked.
Hello to all.
My name is Jorge Clavellina, I am the one who started and administers the youtube channel Dimond Data: https://www.youtube.com/@DimondData
(https://www.youtube.com/@DimondData)I was alerted of the existence of this forum thread by some person who has my personal contact information. I replied then and the reply was posted on twitter, which is where the information has diseminated.
If people are interested in asking me questions more directly and privately, I can be contacted on my Telegram account with the handle @jorgeclavellina
Long story short. I want to reply to Ladislaus and alert him of factually incorrect information he mentions. Namely, that I disclosed some of my past sins in 2014 on my website. This never happened. This is not true. It is unclear if this idea comes from the Dimonds themselves, or if perhaps is something that Ladislaus perceived as being stated via the video of William Burke (a dimondite that I knew somewhat personally for many years). Since in the video (titled, Jorge Clavellina Exposed) is not stated but perhaps one can stretch the idea that since William mentions one of my websites and how I disclosed my sins in May of 2020 via my youtube channel, and perhaps Ladislaus conflated both ideas as me disclosing my sins publicly in 2014, which, again, never ocurred.
One can check on waybackmachine my old pro-dimondite domain (rexisrael (dot) com) and see that my website didn't even had any content up to 2017.
Also, for the general implied idea that is bad to attack the dimonds, or that I should not do so, or that I devote my life to doing only that. Again, that idea is factually incorrect. A more fair representation is that my conceptualization of my actions is that of someone doing public penance. Since I spent 8 years on the dimondite cult, and I published more than one thousand pro-dimondite videos on youtube, and confirmed many souls into the dimondite cult, I want to at least do 8 years of criticism of the Dimonds, to try to correct the propaganda I did for them already.
Also, my Brother in Law is the 3rd sarabaite monk living in New York, he is Jerome Torres, so it is also my faint hope to get my family member out of that cult.
Finally, I would like to say that Ladislaus "defense" of the Journey to Hell video is quite,... something. He mentions if St. Alphonsus state lose any royalties. as if that is the crux of the matter. Ladislaus. St. Alphonsus is robbed out of some of his justly earned glory.
Just give it a go to the comments in such video, they are all venerating the dimonds for what they think is their original work, i'll quote just some:
"[color=var(--yt-spec-text-primary)]The message of this video is powerful. Thank you brothers.[/color]" By Hillaryforin*arceration4404
Most people are not aware of the Classics of Catholic thought, is not as if the Dimonds are quoting Donald Trump, or such types, a book from other centuries is not as known. I say this also by experience, I didn't knew the journey into hell video was plagiarized till 2018 or 2019, give or take, I read the full spanish version of the same book! Preparacion para la muerte.
Anywho, I also want to say that the video of william is filled with slander, but if anyone wants specifics instances refuted or mentioned, I can reply those over here.
Finally, I am still sedevacantist, I only profess water baptism to join the Church, and basically my only position change since may 2020 has been that I reject the Dimonds and their false prophesies.
-
Thanks Gemma, I was actually surprised anyone defended my side of the story.
There's others who are objective enough to look at both sides so you're definitely not alone. I know I've defended you in the past also. As a former Dimondite I know what the journey is like through them and their fans. I started becoming disillusioned by them a few years back after seeing their true colors and then much more so after they persist in their "JPII is THE Antichrist" position. I hope everything goes well for you in the future.
-
Thanks Gemma, I was actually surprised anyone defended my side of the story.
You're welcome, Jorge. Hope you and your wife & children are all doing well. Take care.
-
People who support the dimonds and don't agree with what they did have to tell the dimonds that it was wrong or they will be guilty of the sin of omission, they should really say something because it's going to be a bad day for them on judment day.
Contender for the dumbest thing I read this month.
-
Hello to all.
My name is Jorge Clavellina, ...
Also, for the general implied idea that is bad to attack the dimonds, or that I should not do so, or that I devote my life to doing only that.
Hi, Jorge,
I am truly sorry for what you went through.
I've never stated that it's wrong to disagree with the Dimonds or reject some of their ideas, nor did I imply. I've had a few disputes with them myself over the years.
With regard to whether you had disclosed your own sins, I saw a video that showed screenshots of some posts you had made prior.
Dimond Brothers also deserve a fair hearing, and all the evidence should be examined, before they are accused of committing "mortal sins of detraction". Judging a mortal sin is a matter for the internal forum, unless it's a matter that should be known by anyone from the natural law, and I've pointed out here is that it's one of the major disagreements I've had with the Dimonds, where they too hurl the accusation of mortal sin at individuals. There's a difference between grave matter and an individual committing a mortal sin.
My point was not to justify what they did, since I think that they're wrong and these types of attacks against you (and others) are not justifiable, but my point was to give some reasons why they may have concluded that the behavior was justifiable and therefore at least subjectively believed they were justified in doing so and did not commit a "mortal sin", as others have alleged. Their attackers are doing the same thing that the Dimonds do, hurling accusations of "mortal sin" at others.
I gave an example, where St. Thomas explains that it may be justified to reveal someone's sins when the individual is harming the public good. So, for instance, if you knew about the sins of Martin Luther, because he was damaging the Church, it would be justified for you to reveal them to reduce his credibility and to help minimize the damage he was doing. At that point, he no longer had a right to his good name. Same thing would hold for, say, an individual that you had evidence for being a pedophile. Since he could harm others, it would be justified to reveal their sins.
So, for some reason, the Dimonds put you in this same category, incorrectly, of being an individual who's doing sufficient harm to the faith, that it would warrant their publicly exposing your sins. I think they're wrong and what they did was gravely wrong, but the point I'm making is that accusations of "mortal sin" are inappropriate since only God knows whether they were sincerely convinced that they should take this course of action or whether, as they put it, they were "of bad will", i.e. motivated by vindictiveness or some other malice. Sorting that out is a matter for the internal forum that can be judged by God alone.
-
Finally, I would like to say that Ladislaus "defense" of the Journey to Hell video is quite,... something. He mentions if St. Alphonsus state lose any royalties. as if that is the crux of the matter. Ladislaus. St. Alphonsus is robbed out of some of his justly earned glory.
Just give it a go to the comments in such video, they are all venerating the dimonds for what they think is their original work, i'll quote just some:
"[color=var(--yt-spec-text-primary)]The message of this video is powerful. Thank you brothers.[/color]" By Hillaryforin*arceration4404
St. Alphonsus' works are not under any kind of copyright. In fact, even the English translations published by, say, TAN books, were not copyrighted (the copyright having lapsed). I don't see any issue in their having turned St. Alphonsus' work into a video that is highly edifying and could inspire people to change their lives. St. Alphonsus himself would be happy to hear of it, and would desire no direct attribute or "credit" for it. God knows to give him credit for it in eternity. It's generally a sin against justice to use someone's works if you're depriving them of benefitting from their work. So if someone writes a book that they're making money off of, and you rip it off and publish it online, depriving them of potential revenue, that would be sinful. But does St. Alphonsus need money? As for any spiritual benefit or merit he may receive, this use of his material for the video only increase his merits, as God knows to whom and how much credit is due. St. Alphonsus has been robbed of no "glory", as all glory comes from God. It's an excellent video and your attack on it is "quite ... something." This is petty stuff.
-
St. Alphonsus' works are not under any kind of copyright. In fact, even the English translations published by, say, TAN books, were not copyrighted (the copyright having lapsed). I don't see any issue in their having turned St. Alphonsus' work into a video that is highly edifying and could inspire people to change their lives. St. Alphonsus himself would be happy to hear of it, and would desire no direct attribute or "credit" for it. God knows to give him credit for it in eternity. It's generally a sin against justice to use someone's works if you're depriving them of benefitting from their work. So if someone writes a book that they're making money off of, and you rip it off and publish it online, depriving them of potential revenue, that would be sinful. But does St. Alphonsus need money? As for any spiritual benefit or merit he may receive, this use of his material for the video only increase his merits, as God knows to whom and how much credit is due. St. Alphonsus has been robbed of no "glory", as all glory comes from God. It's an excellent video and your attack on it is "quite ... something." This is petty stuff.
To top it off, this gentleman's reasoning ability is not quite up ti scratch. The comment he chose to showcase doesn't demonstrate the commenter thought the text was wholly the Brothers' original work.
I, for one, immediately recognized St. Leonard's, St. Alphonsus' and Walsh's texts. No disclaimer is necessary since this is an original work incorporating many sources.
-
Hi, Jorge,
I am truly sorry for what you went through.
I've never stated that it's wrong to disagree with the Dimonds or reject some of their ideas, nor did I imply. I've had a few disputes with them myself over the years.
With regard to whether you had disclosed your own sins, I saw a video that showed screenshots of some posts you had made prior.
Dimond Brothers also deserve a fair hearing, and all the evidence should be examined, before they are accused of committing "mortal sins of detraction". Judging a mortal sin is a matter for the internal forum, unless it's a matter that should be known by anyone from the natural law, and I've pointed out here is that it's one of the major disagreements I've had with the Dimonds, where they too hurl the accusation of mortal sin at individuals. There's a difference between grave matter and an individual committing a mortal sin.
My point was not to justify what they did, since I think that they're wrong and these types of attacks against you (and others) are not justifiable, but my point was to give some reasons why they may have concluded that the behavior was justifiable and therefore at least subjectively believed they were justified in doing so and did not commit a "mortal sin", as others have alleged. Their attackers are doing the same thing that the Dimonds do, hurling accusations of "mortal sin" at others.
I gave an example, where St. Thomas explains that it may be justified to reveal someone's sins when the individual is harming the public good. So, for instance, if you knew about the sins of Martin Luther, because he was damaging the Church, it would be justified for you to reveal them to reduce his credibility and to help minimize the damage he was doing. At that point, he no longer had a right to his good name. Same thing would hold for, say, an individual that you had evidence for being a pedophile. Since he could harm others, it would be justified to reveal their sins.
So, for some reason, the Dimonds put you in this same category, incorrectly, of being an individual who's doing sufficient harm to the faith, that it would warrant their publicly exposing your sins. I think they're wrong and what they did was gravely wrong, but the point I'm making is that accusations of "mortal sin" are inappropriate since only God knows whether they were sincerely convinced that they should take this course of action or whether, as they put it, they were "of bad will", i.e. motivated by vindictiveness or some other malice. Sorting that out is a matter for the internal forum that can be judged by God alone.
I'm gonna be 'that guy'. But regarding Saint Thomas. Does he address exposing sins confessed to a religious in confidence?
-
There's others who are objective enough to look at both sides so you're definitely not alone. I know I've defended you in the past also. As a former Dimondite I know what the journey is like through them and their fans. I started becoming disillusioned by them a few years back after seeing their true colors and then much more so after they persist in their "JPII is THE Antichrist" position. I hope everything goes well for you in the future.
Thank you for the kind words. I correct my initial statement, it was not only gemma who stated things that would be helpful for my reputation. Thanks.
-
You're welcome, Jorge. Hope you and your wife & children are all doing well. Take care.
My children are growing well, very healthy and nicely, and me and my wife bonded and grew together out of this stressful situation, we will celebrate 10 years of marriage in october of this year.
Thanks be to God.
-
Hi, Jorge,
I am truly sorry for what you went through.
I've never stated that it's wrong to disagree with the Dimonds or reject some of their ideas, nor did I imply. I've had a few disputes with them myself over the years.
With regard to whether you had disclosed your own sins, I saw a video that showed screenshots of some posts you had made prior......
So, for some reason, the Dimonds put you in this same category, incorrectly, of being an individual who's doing sufficient harm to the faith, that it would warrant their publicly exposing your sins. I think they're wrong and what they did was gravely wrong, but the point I'm making is that accusations of "mortal sin" are inappropriate since only God knows whether they were sincerely convinced that they should take this course of action or whether, as they put it, they were "of bad will", i.e. motivated by vindictiveness or some other malice. Sorting that out is a matter for the internal forum that can be judged by God alone.
Hello Ladislaus, thank you for replying.
Can you please clarify this line: "With regard to whether you had disclosed your own sins, I saw a video that showed screenshots of some posts you had made prior"
Are those screenshots any who you saw via the video of william titled "Jorge Clavellina Exposed"? or is another video?
For detraction, and for mortal sin in general. We do disagree, so let me explain what I have understood via my reading of some moral theolgy on detraction, and moral theology in general.
Mortal sin can be justly interpreted only by exterior investigation if the matter is grave and full consent is obvious, for example, if someone m*rdered an innocent person he obviously didn't know in a public place (for instance, school s *hotings would be a good example). In that case, the internal state of the person would perhaps only diminish or increase the liability of the mortal sin, but would not change it to venial.
There is difference in malice within mortal sins (say, a mortal sin of a teenager, versus a mortal sin of a hardened criminal), but is not as if its impossible to tell.
Now, for the mortal sin of detraction, I read that the gravity of the matter is judged by how effective and definitive such detraction is at destroying the honor of the person, and how high the honor of the person was to begin with. The example I read somewhere (sorry since I don't have the specific quotation) is that if someone said of a sailor that he got drunk, the sin might be venial because sailors are known and tolerated for such public practices, but if a persons says the same of the Bishop, it would be mortal, since the level of destruction to their good name is greater and more irreparable.
If we go by that standard. It is patently obvious that the sin was mortal. And perhaps a clue is in which level of detraction was used, meaning, the disclosing of mortal sins. And also, the good name I had at the time within dimondite circles, which was so high that people wilingly donated money to my youtube channel and my efforts to promote dimondism. (also, this donations were directly and explicitly green-lighted by Sarabaite Michael, a fact they never mention, rather implying my efforts at getting donation was almost like stealing from them.)
I did read your criticisms of them and I slightly agree, but evidently not fully. I am aware that you are not 100% on their camp and I was aware of that even months before seeing this thread, since sometimes I have read your posts on baptism of desire and your position against it.
-
St. Alphonsus' works are not under any kind of copyright. In fact, even the English translations published by, say, TAN books, were not copyrighted (the copyright having lapsed). I don't see any issue in their having turned St. Alphonsus' work into a video that is highly edifying and could inspire people to change their lives. St. Alphonsus himself would be happy to hear of it, and would desire no direct attribute or "credit" for it. God knows to give him credit for it in eternity. It's generally a sin against justice to use someone's works if you're depriving them of benefitting from their work. So if someone writes a book that they're making money off of, and you rip it off and publish it online, depriving them of potential revenue, that would be sinful. But does St. Alphonsus need money? As for any spiritual benefit or merit he may receive, this use of his material for the video only increase his merits, as God knows to whom and how much credit is due. St. Alphonsus has been robbed of no "glory", as all glory comes from God. It's an excellent video and your attack on it is "quite ... something." This is petty stuff.
Sure, I am not talking about money. Money is just a promise of temporal goods and utterly irrelevant in the equation, and yes, the works themselves are on the public domain.
Yes, glory comes from God, but even though glory properly speaking only comes from God, humans venerating humans and giving glory for good deeds, are things that have to be ordered according to justice.
In this case, it is reasonable that the name of the author (St. Alphonsus) be known, and that the accidental veneration of such saint be increased.
If a person comes to read a book of St. Alphonsus, and converts due to his influence, and prays to him, an accidental increase in his delight in heaven does occur (according to tradition), so, not only you are wrong that the Dimonds are not stealing something, they are,.... prayers that would had been directed at the saint, and honor that would had justly directed at him, were instead falsely, blasphemously and unjsutly being directed at the Dimonds.
The Dimonds are wearing St. Alphonsus brilliant writing as a skin to increase their social standing, and for 2 decades had succeded, but this situation is not sustainable, and the stealing of such honor is a sacrilege that will be duly punished by God in this life or the other.
If you geniunely think is a nothingburguer to plagiarize the brilliant writings of a saint without attribution (nay, with misattribution, saying it is the whole-video-of-sarabaite-mike) then tell someone that knows the Dimonds the truth, and see how they react. In my experience (from me and others) a deep sense of betrayal, of deception, and a longing for justice and reparation are common feelings.
Also, it is obvious that the level of pride a person must have to steal writings from a saint is almost preternatural. Imagine if my wife stole the writings of St. Therese of lisieux (also in the public domain) and made people believed that the writing was entirely hers? or more, imagine that someone is crazy enough to say he was in the Incarnation the one who delievered the news to the Virgin Mary, instead of the Archangel Gabriel.
The whole idea is bad, extremely sinful, and most of the time wouldn't work. But we are discussing equivalent things, and we behave on principle, not on grade, and although no one has dared to try to misattribute the partipants of the incarnation, even though the blasphemy and sacrilege of the Dimonds is not as great, is of the same type.
-
To top it off, this gentleman's reasoning ability is not quite up ti scratch. The comment he chose to showcase doesn't demonstrate the commenter thought the text was wholly the Brothers' original work.
I, for one, immediately recognized St. Leonard's, St. Alphonsus' and Walsh's texts. No disclaimer is necessary since this is an original work incorporating many sources.
Is it a fair representation to say that your position is that people should know is st alphonsus, st leonard, etc writing? that is their responsibility? and that such people should attribute such efforts of them to their corresponding source in silence, while we allow the random dimondite who never read such books to venerate the dimonds with the intensity due to such brilliant writings of catholic classics?
Is that your position, that if anyone is just not as savvy and well-read as you, that they deserve to think the dimonds brain is more brilliant than what it actually is?
Really? are you joking?
-
Contender for the dumbest thing I read this month.
whatever dude
-
My children are growing well, very healthy and nicely, and me and my wife bonded and grew together out of this stressful situation, we will celebrate 10 years of marriage in october of this year.
Thanks be to God.
Congratulations Jorge! I'm so happy for you. :pray:
-
So, Jorge, while you were under the influence of the Dimond Brothers, you picked up some of their more objectionable traits. In this video you refer to someone as an "evil treacherous woman", most certainly an uncharitable hyperbole. This is the same type of stuff the Dimond Brothers did to you. They decided that you too were evil and treacherous, and that therefore their revelation of your sins was permissible ... to counteract the "evil" harm you were doing.
This nonsense needs to stop, on both sides.
With regard to your major point, that the Dimond Brothers have a hard time admitting they might have been wrong about something, that would appear to be the case, and I would be edified to hear them just once admitting that they were wrong or mistaken about something.
My disagreement over the dimonds actions is not about mannerisms and politeness. Most probably you were not aware of my existence before this thread, but I am quite blunt and direct by personality. I didn't become like that due to the Dimonds, but it is true that bluntness and being quite noisy did lead to me thinking we were very similar and had matched in our inclinations.
Alas, even their "bluntness" "courage" "no-non-sense" meme is all but propaganda. They LARP as cruzaders, but quite many times act cowardly, many times act politely in ways that shouldn't occur according to their standards, etc
So, no, I am not complaining, nor expecting that I'd be treated with marshmellow gloves. Nor do the way maurlus barks at me scares me or puts me in shame or anything.
The title I put on every participant of this ordeal is what I genuinely believe to be the accurate and fair charachterization of them, for most of the Dimondites who loved to cling to their schadenfreude feelings it is what I had known to be the truth. I guess additional context could be required for this, so I'll say the following, for most of them I knew them for years, for some of them, I knew them in person, for some of them, I personally trained them in the ways of the dimondite maze, so is not me talking about random people I had no idea about, but more of previous-allies, previous close friends, etc, etc
-
I'm gonna be 'that guy'. But regarding Saint Thomas. Does he address exposing sins confessed to a religious in confidence?
I haven't read anything specifically mentioning a layman receiving spiritual direction from a monk or similar religious outside of the confesional. But I'd be quite shocked if the answer in canon law and moral theology manuals is that such conversations are fair game.
The idea on its face sounds wrong. Although the seal of the confessional is absolute, I think is probable that a religious receiving secrets of a layman outside of the confessional would had quite a high bar of protection of secrecy. I wouldn't be surprised if excommunication be a punishment for revealing secrets received outside of the confessional without a just cause.
If anyone has a specific quotation on that, I'd be very glad to receive it in order to study it.
-
I'm gonna be 'that guy'. But regarding Saint Thomas. Does he address exposing sins confessed to a religious in confidence?
Fred and Bob are not even religious (see attachment), they're brothers by birth, not monastic. Per cuм ex, which they've promoted, being NO before their conversion disqualifies them from ever being Brothers.
In either case, it's a rotten thing for them to do no matter the reason.
-
Fred and Bob are not even religious (see attachment), they're brothers by birth, not monastic. Per cuм ex, which they've promoted, being NO before their conversion disqualifies them from ever being Brothers.
In either case, it's a rotten thing for them to do no matter the reason.
I'd be semi-defending the Dimonds here:
They are Sarabaite Monks, since the monastic status is not connected to any sacrament (like being a priest), and there is historical precedent for such, freely-done-monasteries in which the Bishop didn't knew of their existence for years sometimes.
Since we are in sedevacante, either no other is a monk now (no SSPX monk, no CMRI monk, etc) or monastic status is more doable or attainable via dominative authority mentioned in canon law.
I came to conclude they are monks, just horrible monks. Sarabaite monks. They are not benedictine because they had not fulfill the rule of st benedict for any lenght of time that I am aware. So they are lying about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarabaites
"They either continued like the early asceticism, to live in their own homes, or dwelt together in or near cities. They acknowledged no monastic superior, obeyed no definite rule, and disposed individually of the product of their manual labour.
Jerome speaks of them under the name remoboth, and John Cassian tells of their wide diffusion in Egypt and other lands. Both writers express a very unfavourable opinion concerning their conduct, and a reference to them in the Rule of Saint Benedict is of similar import.[1]
At a later date, the name Sarabaites, the original meaning of which cannot be determined,[verification needed] designated in a general way degenerate monks. The Rule of St. Benedict considered their non-adherence to church canon only to be exceeded by the gyrovagues.[1]"
Mind you, being a monk means their sins are greater, so if the idea is to highlight their wickedness, they are more wicked if we accept the truth that they are degenerate monks, rather than to insist on the idea (in my view, false) that they are layman. In such case, their sins would be less grave.
-
I said:
I admit it wasn't as clear as it could be since I didn't point out the implicit point of disagreement. You seem to think that because some person got sick with "covid" (or whatever it was) somehow changes the Dimonds' culpability or something.
The fact that this Jerome's father was sick is completely irrelevant. YOU ARE ACCUSING THE DIMONDS OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND MURDEROUS PROPAGANDA! As your "proof" you present 1) an unverifiable narrative about someone being sick and 2) that the brothers repost news articles calling out the plandemic hoax. WHERE IS THE HOMICIDE?!?! Most people on this forum promote the truth about the plandemic, are they committing "negligent homicide"? What's the difference between us and the Dimonds?
That's the missing proof and context I was talking about. You can either be consistent and call us all granny-killers or you can drop this charade.
I gave a chance to your collective body of work (videos) by watching (at the time of posting) one video.
NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE DOGMATIC WHICH DEMONSTRATES HOW CLUELESS YOU ARE.
I asked:
And you provided zero examples of heresy and positions that lead others to sin, only, you guessed it - non-definitive issues and you have the temerity to accuse me of rash judgment while proving me correct.
#3 Is just a blatant lie and deliberate misrepresentation. It's worse than anything you accuse MHFM of doing. They don't promote occultism and you know it. You're talking of a clip in a 4-hour-long video in which some guy says some generic things about doing a ritual. He doesn't go into any specifics and it's not a tutorial.
I'm not as gullible as you and I put my confidence in God, not man. Don't worry, my assessment of MHFM is realistic, unlike yours which is an emotional and irrational grievance.
You didn't even address my main point. What are you trying to accomplish by smearing MHFM? It's clear that you don't have the good of souls in mind and let me prove it -- Did MHFM do more good or evil on the whole? We both know the answer to that one -- you're a major hypocrite.
I'm done with responding to your calumnies and lies until you retract them.
2.- On the thing about: "I say what dogmatically you disagree with and you say nothing dogmatic"
Ohhh, I beg to differ. Promoting occultism is heresy. Occultic works and actions should be burned and their memory completely erradicated, precisely because weak people could be deceived by these works. This is connected to dogma and to doctrine.
Also, putting the Blessed Sacrament on a closet, while building a lavish basketball court is also connected to dogma. Meaning, the dogma of the Sublime standing of the Body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the respect we all ought to internally and externally display to the Divine Host. To obstinately do the contradictory would also be heresy, which seems to be the case with the dimonds, that had sacrilegiously disrespected Our Lord for years now, even after correction.
Also, it has been condemned by the Fifth lateran council to try to find out when the end of the world is coming. So false prophesying has been EXPLICITLY condemn by a general council. Which is, mind you, connected to dogma.
Check for yourself: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм18.htm
" [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]We have learnt from trustworthy sources that some preachers in our times (we record this with sorrow) do not attend to the fact that they are carrying out the office of those we have named, of the holy doctors of the church and of others professing sacred theology, who, ever standing by Christians and confronting false prophets striving to overturn the faith, have shown that the church militant remains unimpaired by her very nature; and that they ought to adopt only what the people who flock to their sermons will find useful, by means of reflection and practical application, for rooting out vices, praising virtues and saving the souls of the faithful. Reliable report has it, rather, that they are preaching many and various things contrary to the teachings and examples which we have mentioned, sometimes with scandal to the people. This fact influences our attitude very deeply when we reflect within ourself that these preachers, unmindful of their duty, are striving in their sermons not for the benefit of the hearers but rather for their own self-display. They flatter the idle ears of some people who seem to have already reached a state that would make true the words of the Apostle writing to Timothy: For, a time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching but, having itching ears, they will accuмulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths . These preachers make no attempt whatever to lead back the deceived and empty minds of such people to the path of right and truth. Indeed, they involve them in even greater errors. Without any reverence for the testimony of canon law, indeed contrary to canonical censures, twisting the sense of scripture in many places, often giving it rash and false interpretations, they preach what is false; they threaten, describe and assert to be present, totally unsupported by legitimate proofs and merely following their own private interpretation, various terrors, menaces and many other evils, which they say are about to arrive and are already growing; they very often introduce to their congregations certain futile and worthless ideas and other matters of this nature; and, what is more appalling, they dare to claim that they possess this information from the light of eternity and by the guidance and grace of the holy Spirit .[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]When these preachers spread this medley of fraud and error, backed by the false testimony of alleged miracles, the congregations whom they ought to be carefully instructing in the gospel message, and retaining and preserving in the true faith, are withdrawn by their sermons from the teaching and commands of the universal church. When they turn aside from the official sacred teachings, which they ought particularly to follow, they separate and move far from salvation those who listen to them. For, as a result of these and similar activities, the less educated people, as being more exposed to deceit, are very easily led into manifold errors, as they wander from the path of salvation and from obedience to the Roman church. Gregory, therefore, who was outstanding in this task, moved by the warmth of his charity, gave a strong exhortation and warning to preachers that, when about to speak, they approach the people with prudence and caution lest, caught up in the enthusiasm of their oratory, they entangle the hearts of their hearers with verbal errors as if with nooses, and while perhaps they wish to appear wise, in their delusion they foolishly tear asunder the sinews of the hoped-for virtue. For, the meaning of words is often lost when the hearts of the audience are bruised by too urgent and careless forms of speech .[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Indeed, in no other way do these preachers cause greater harm and scandal to the less educated than when they preach on what should be left unspoken or when they introduce error by teaching what is false and useless. Since such things are known to be totally opposed to this holy and divinely instituted religion, as being novelties and foreign to it, it is surely just for them to be examined seriously and carefully, lest they cause scandal for the christian people and ruin for the souls of their authors and of others. We therefore desire, in accord with the word of the prophet, Who makes harmony dwell in the house, to restore that uniformity which has lost esteem, and to preserve such as remains, insofar as we can with God’s help, in the holy church of God, which by divine providence we preside over and which is indeed one, preaches and worships one God and firmly and sincerely professes one faith. We wish that those who preach the word of God to the people be such that God’s church suffers no scandal from their preaching. If they are amenable to correction, let them abstain in future from these matters into which they have recently ventured. For it is clear that, in addition to the points which we have mentioned, a number of them are no longer preaching the way of the Lord in virtue and are not expounding the gospel, as is their duty, but rather invented miracles, new and false prophecies and other frivolities hardly distinguishable from old wives’ tales. Such things give rise to great scandal since no account is taken of devotion and authority and of its condemnations and rejections. There are those who make attempts to impress and win support by bawling everywhere, not sparing even those who are honoured with pontifical rank and other prelates of the church, to whom they should rather be showing honour and reverence. They attack their persons and their state of life, boldly and without discrimination, and commit other acts of this kind. Our aim is that so dangerous and contagious an evil and so mortal a disease may be thoroughly wiped out and that its consequences may be so completely swept away that not even its memory remains"
[/color]Fifth Lateran Council - On How to preach
-
"You didn't even address my main point. What are you trying to accomplish by smearing MHFM? It's clear that you don't have the good of souls in mind and let me prove it -- Did MHFM do more good or evil on the whole? We both know the answer to that one -- you're a major hypocrite."
What do I try to accomplish by telling the truth about the Dimondite cult? Glad you asked! Most people only assume what I am aiming at, so it is refreshing to be asked directly, here I go:
1.- I want to repair the time I did promoting them for 8 years. I want to at least do 8 years of anti-dimondite truth-telling to offset my public guilt I incurred when binding souls to the dimondite panopticon.
2.- I want (and I am obtaining) to dislodge new members of the dimondite cult. Meaning, thos who are entering said cult in 2023 and that honest-to-God think the dimonds are saints, amazing, the 2 witness, etc, These demographic is my most fervent aim, since I once was one of these, and Eric Hoyle also composed part of such types-. The one who honestly think the dimonds are 1000% good, but are ignorant of the truth that contradicts the propaganda they come to believe as newbie dimondites. So far I am glad that my efforts have been crowned by several such people, who contacted me wanting to know the truth and thinking I was bad and would be obvious once they contacted me. Meaning, that such people believe the dimonds so much that they are not scare of opponents, since they believe all the opponents of the dimonds to be wrong and therefore, just a matter of studying them and rebuke them in public.
3.- I want (and I am obtaining) a diminish in enthusiasm of dimondites in general. Since crusader-like enthusiasm can only persist if you really believe the dimonds are saints, when people come to find the truth. EVEN IF THEY REMAIN DIMONDITES their twitter account falls into some kind of slumber, their digital demeanor seem more fatigued, and they overall seem more jaded.
I would wish these people would instead leave the cult, but if no more than that could be achieve, that is good enough overall if that's what God is allowing to occur.
For the line: "Did the dimonds did more good on the whole?"
I say they have done nothing good so far:
“bonum ex integra causa; malum ex quocuмque defectu”
“Goodness can be predicated only of what is completely good, whereas badness can be predicated of anything which is in any way bad.” This principle is enunciated, in slightly different terms, by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiæ, I, II, Q. 18, A. 4)
Now, if you ask me if God allows this to bring about a greater good, or if God can use the Dimonds for bringing about a greater good from the evil they do, sure. That is standard Catholic teaching, but is the same for God allowing all the corruption in Washington DC for the cause of getting a greater good from that, or allowing the antipopes to be where they are in order to creater a greater good even from their bad actions. But that doesn't turn a evil cult in a good thing, but rather that God can use anything for His plans.
I can see some contingent good statements that some dimondite could potentially use to stop being a dimondite and become a Traditional Catholic, but since the primary emotional attachment of most dimondites is for the dimonds, this rarely happens, is like people who go to the SSPX and even though the SSPX says true things in many regards, they can never break free from the errors of Lefebvre, in such case no real goodness is ever attained.
So, no.
-
I'd be semi-defending the Dimonds here:
They are Sarabaite Monks, since the monastic status is not connected to any sacrament (like being a priest), and there is historical precedent for such, freely-done-monasteries in which the Bishop didn't knew of their existence for years sometimes.
Since we are in sedevacante, either no other is a monk now (no SSPX monk, no CMRI monk, etc) or monastic status is more doable or attainable via dominative authority mentioned in canon law.
I appreciate the fact that you can remain objective here. That speaks well of you.
Indeed, they're every bit as legitimate as any of the other Traditional groups out there, and even during the lawsuit against them by Eric Hoyle, they obtained statements from the Benedictine Congregation in Rome attesting to the fact that there's no formal Benedictine organization, and that anyone who professes to follow the rule of St. Benedict (which is also mean to be modifiable for your circuмstances) can be called a Benedictine. Beneditines are different than the other religious orders that way.
-
2.- I want (and I am obtaining) to dislodge new members of the dimondite cult.
I agree that many of their followers have a cult mentality. What you can see is when the follower adopts some of the same language, and this type of programmed language is what contributes to that mentality. When some of their followers make videos, for instance, you'll hear the same types of catch-phrases. This is evident even in the one video that was posted about C'D, such as when you branded someone an "evil treacherous woman". That's actually part of the same mentality that contributes to the cult programming.
-
I appreciate the fact that you can remain objective here. That speaks well of you.
Indeed, they're every bit as legitimate as any of the other Traditional groups out there, and even during the lawsuit against them by Eric Hoyle, they obtained statements from the Benedictine Congregation in Rome attesting to the fact that there's no formal Benedictine organization, and that anyone who professes to follow the rule of St. Benedict (which is also mean to be modifiable for your circuмstances) can be called a Benedictine. Beneditines are different than the other religious orders that way.
Thank you. I still disagree they are benedictines. But we partially agree I guess.
-
For the line: "Did the dimonds did more good on the whole?"
I say they have done nothing good so far:
“bonum ex integra causa; malum ex quocuмque defectu”
“Goodness can be predicated only of what is completely good, whereas badness can be predicated of anything which is in any way bad.” This principle is enunciated, in slightly different terms, by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiæ, I, II, Q. 18, A. 4)
No, you're misinterpreting that statement. To take from that and to extrapolate from this that they have done "nothing good" is nonsense. People have converted to the faith, and they have done a lot of good work in many areas, their life of Padre Pio, their Proving the Catholic Faith from the Bible, etc. These are all good. To claim that because an individual has some defects, that he can do "NOTHING" good is a step from the condemned Jansenist propositions. If I'm an adulterer, but then give a poor man $1,000, does that mean that giving the man $1,000 was not good? Of course not. That was indeed a good thing. Now, since the man was not in a state of grace, he received no supernatural merit, but it does not mean that the act itself wasn't good, an act of natural virtue. Jansenists had a proposition condemned that there can be nothing good outside the Church, basically outside the supernatural order. If misapply this principle the way you did, NONE of us has ever done anything good, because we all have some bad about us, all have some "defects".
-
I agree that many of their followers have a cult mentality. What you can see is when the follower adopts some of the same language, and this type of programmed language is what contributes to that mentality. When some of their followers make videos, for instance, you'll hear the same types of catch-phrases. This is evident even in the one video that was posted about COVID, such as when you branded someone an "evil treacherous woman". That's actually part of the same mentality that contributes to the cult programming.
I was similarly blunt before being a dimondite, is a my personality to a degree. True, different cults have different main-personality-traits usually derived from the cult leader, but that personality trait is also on the wild outside of the cult because the cult is formed by a human.
Just like they are people with polite mannerisms that use such to be evil outside of cults, if a cult where to have a cult leader with such personality trait, the cult members would be adoptive such trait in a very obvious way. But again, that trait is not exclusive to the cult or one cult alone.
There are cults that are agressive, others passive agressive, others give great importance to being polite, etc, humans being humans.
I just wanted to say that me being blunt (which could be attacked or being deem excessive and I can live with such criticism) is not entirely because I was a dimondite. Although I would concede that it did became worse when I was there, and it has diminished since I left.
Now I also try to exercise a more neutral way of communicating, even if first attacked, even though that was a no-no when being a dimondite.
-
Thank you. I still disagree they are benedictines. But we partially agree I guess.
Well, I've posted information on the Benedictines, and even the current (albeit heretical) Roman Congregation stated that they could rightly call themselves Benedictines.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Benedictines:
The term Order as here applied to the spiritual family of St. Benedict is used in a sense differing somewhat from that in which it is applied to other religious orders. In its ordinary meaning the term implies one complete religious family, made up of a number of monasteries, all of which are subject to a common superior or "general" who usually resides either in Rome or in the mother-house of the order, if there be one. It may be divided into various provinces, according to the countries over which it is spread, each provincial head being immediately subject to the general, just as the superior of each house is subject to his own provincial. This system of centralized authority has never entered into the organization of the Benedictine Order. There is no general or common superior over the whole order other than the pope himself, and the order consists, so to speak, of what are practically a number of orders, called "congregations", each of which is autonomous; all are united, not under the obedience to one general superior, but only by the spiritual bond of allegiance to the same Rule, which may be modified according to the circuмstances of each particular house or congregation. It is in this latter sense that the term Order is applied in this article to all monasteries professing to observe St. Benedict's Rule.
-
No, you're misinterpreting that statement. To take from that and to extrapolate from this that they have done "nothing good" is nonsense. People have converted to the faith, and they have done a lot of good work in many areas, their life of Padre Pio, their Proving the Catholic Faith from the Bible, etc. These are all good. To claim that because an individual has some defects, that he can do "NOTHING" good is a step from the condemned Jansenist propositions. If I'm an adulterer, but then give a poor man $1,000, does that mean that giving the man $1,000 was not good? Of course not. That was indeed a good thing. Now, since the man was not in a state of grace, he received no supernatural merit, but it does not mean that the act itself wasn't good, an act of natural virtue. Jansenists had a proposition condemned that there can be nothing good outside the Church, basically outside the supernatural order. If misapply this principle the way you did, NONE of us has ever done anything good, because we all have some bad about us, all have some "defects".
I just remember that I asked if you had the screenshots that supposudely said that I disclosed my sins in 2014, could you point out the specific source for that claim? I don't want to forget that. Is important.
For your idea, let me go in more detail:
The Dimonds have done nothing supernaturally good.
If we talk about the natural order, yes, many true statements they have said are good and that is good. But that goodness is purely natural. Why? Because even though their true statements are spiritually-oriented and theoretically could lead to enduring supernatural goodness, the whole set up of the cult corrupts such things at their base.
Why? because if you believe them in the true things they quote, they make sure (and apply maximum pressure to the conscience) that you also believe their false prophesies, and they also want to make sure that whatever true statements they do, are explicitly connected to their standing as saintly people.
This is similar to the millionaires who feed people in public via an ONG, the action is naturally good, but since it is done in such a pharisaical manner it many times causes bad outcomes directly related to their actions, like the millionaire being more prideful at the end of the ordeal.
Similarly, the dimonds pride seem to increase with each "thank dimonds!!" letter they publish on the e-exchanges. So, many times, even they (the dimonds) are self-harming, in the way they conduct their websites and youtube.
-
Well, I've posted information on the Benedictines, and even the current (albeit heretical) Roman Congregation stated that they could rightly call themselves Benedictines.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Benedictines:
I have read that post on the Catholic Encyclopedia, that's part of the reason in my view they are not benedictines.
Their lifestyle is so devoid not only of the rule of st benedict (Eric Hoyle told me personally that no-rule-at-all existed) but of any Catholic Monastic order, that the only reasonable conclusion is to call them Sarabaites.
If they described their way of life (watching sports regularly, unfiltered internet for hours, post vile worldly news every day, attack random people on the internet, etc) their "rule" would not be approved by any Pope or Bishop, since many of the mainstays of their life are actively harmful for any spirituality. (like not sleeping during nights most of the time and sleeping until you collapse due to exhaustion).
-
No, you're misinterpreting that statement. To take from that and to extrapolate from this that they have done "nothing good" is nonsense. People have converted to the faith, and they have done a lot of good work in many areas, their life of Padre Pio, their Proving the Catholic Faith from the Bible, etc. These are all good. To claim that because an individual has some defects, that he can do "NOTHING" good is a step from the condemned Jansenist propositions. If I'm an adulterer, but then give a poor man $1,000, does that mean that giving the man $1,000 was not good? Of course not. That was indeed a good thing. Now, since the man was not in a state of grace, he received no supernatural merit, but it does not mean that the act itself wasn't good, an act of natural virtue. Jansenists had a proposition condemned that there can be nothing good outside the Church, basically outside the supernatural order. If misapply this principle the way you did, NONE of us has ever done anything good, because we all have some bad about us, all have some "defects".
I guess an even more precise statement would be summarized as this:
The good they have done is naturalistic but leads to spiritual harm.
Since the good quotes they shared of Popes comes wrapped with false prophesies and veneration of them (heavily implied and enforced by the cult leaders and its members).
So, while the good is natural and not eternal, the harm is eternal and God knows how many dimondites already had died in a bad moral shape.
-
I'd be semi-defending the Dimonds here:
They are Sarabaite Monks, since the monastic status is not connected to any sacrament (like being a priest), and there is historical precedent for such, freely-done-monasteries in which the Bishop didn't knew of their existence for years sometimes.
Since we are in sedevacante, either no other is a monk now (no SSPX monk, no CMRI monk, etc) or monastic status is more doable or attainable via dominative authority mentioned in canon law.
I came to conclude they are monks, just horrible monks. Sarabaite monks. They are not benedictine because they had not fulfill the rule of st benedict for any lenght of time that I am aware. So they are lying about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarabaites
"They either continued like the early asceticism, to live in their own homes, or dwelt together in or near cities. They acknowledged no monastic superior, obeyed no definite rule, and disposed individually of the product of their manual labour.
Jerome speaks of them under the name remoboth, and John Cassian tells of their wide diffusion in Egypt and other lands. Both writers express a very unfavourable opinion concerning their conduct, and a reference to them in the Rule of Saint Benedict is of similar import.[1]
At a later date, the name Sarabaites, the original meaning of which cannot be determined,[verification needed] designated in a general way degenerate monks. The Rule of St. Benedict considered their non-adherence to church canon only to be exceeded by the gyrovagues.[1]"
Mind you, being a monk means their sins are greater, so if the idea is to highlight their wickedness, they are more wicked if we accept the truth that they are degenerate monks, rather than to insist on the idea (in my view, false) that they are layman. In such case, their sins would be less grave.
Would you say two sisters who put on nun's habits and made their house into a convent are truly nuns or Sarabaite nuns? No, of course not. They both falsely call themselves "Brothers" and wear the garb in their effort to lend credence to their lie. I will call them Fred and Bob, you are free to call the two whatever you like, even Brothers if that makes you feel better.
At any rate, they've touted cuм ex Apostolatus Officio in their efforts to judge that popes are not popes just as if they can, but, conveniently forgetting that they were NO heretics before they discovered tradition," seest not the beam that is in their own eye, they are condemned by the same cuм ex....
[Anysoever who] (b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy ...in addition to the aforementioned
sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of
fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of: their.. Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever... - cuм ex
If cuм ex is still in force (it isn't but if it is as they say) then they could never be Brothers of any kind.
-
Would you say two sisters who put on nun's habits and made their house into a convent are truly nuns or Sarabaite nuns? No, of course not. They both falsely call themselves "Brothers" and wear the garb in their effort to lend credence to their lie. I will call them Fred and Bob, you are free to call the two whatever you like, even Brothers if that makes you feel better.
At any rate, they've touted cuм ex Apostolatus Officio in their efforts to judge that popes are not popes just as if they can, but, conveniently forgetting that they were NO heretics before they discovered tradition," seest not the beam that is in their own eye, they are condemned by the same cuм ex....
[Anysoever who] (b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy ...in addition to the aforementioned
sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of
fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of: their.. Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever... - cuм ex
If cuм ex is still in force (it isn't but if it is as they say) then they could never be Brothers of any kind.
As the Dimonds say and everyone of sense maintains, cuм Ex Apostolatus' disciplinary elements are abrogated but the divine law principle that a heretic is outside the Church and therefore can hold no office in it remains true.
-
As the Dimonds say and everyone of sense maintains, cuм Ex Apostolatus' disciplinary elements are abrogated but the divine law principle that a heretic is outside the Church and therefore can hold no office in it remains true.
:facepalm:
https://tinyurl.com/5b4f688z
"...Paul IV declares that a claimant to the papal office, who demonstrated heresy before his election, can be recognized and rejected as a heretic without any declaration.
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power."
The lie they preach above is that Paul IV limited his condemnation only to a "claimant to the papal office," the truth is that he declares excommunicated "anysoever" who ever deviated from the faith. Fred and Bob, being NO heretics prior to finding tradition, are among Pope Paul IV's " anysoever."
-
As the Dimonds say and everyone of sense maintains, cuм Ex Apostolatus' disciplinary elements are abrogated but the divine law principle that a heretic is outside the Church and therefore can hold no office in it remains true.
At the very least, cuм ex Apostolatus implicitly rejects the principle of "Universal Acceptance". While one could argue it's disciplinary, the statement that heretics cannot be popes even if they're "accepted by all" would be rendered absolutely moot, utterly null and void, if in fact "acceptance by all" would legitimize the election or be proof of its validity.
-
I guess an even more precise statement would be summarized as this:
The good they have done is naturalistic but leads to spiritual harm.
Since the good quotes they shared of Popes comes wrapped with false prophesies and veneration of them (heavily implied and enforced by the cult leaders and its members).
So, while the good is natural and not eternal, the harm is eternal and God knows how many dimondites already had died in a bad moral shape.
Thanks for your information Jorge. I know digital logos used to be a dimondite and he had said several negative things about them on twitter (before he deleted his profile), his input would be useful here but unfortunately he has had enough of Catholic infighting so he 'took a break' (hopefully he is still Catholic).
I agree that many of their videos reference their own prophecies which I find annoying. Some of their material I do find useful however. When I first found them I did not know that "preparation for death" was by St. Alphonsus, it would have been nice to know so I could read more of his works, though I found him out later anyway (Deo gratias).
The state of the Church is quite pitiful, out of all the trad groups only the dimonds are against BoD, BoB, and II, and they are a cult...
-
Well, I for one have no animosity against the Dimond Brothers. I was a dogmatic SV for a time, so I know how one can go down that path, so not only "there but for the grace of God go I" but "there I was myself". I pray for them, and have no ill will toward them, despite the fact that they've sent me a few very harsh e-mails. But I don't take things like that personally. I've also been ridiculed by Father Cekada, but I hold no ill will toward him either and, despite the fact that I disagree with quite a few of his positions, I give him credit where he does good work. Dimond Brothers have done some great work that benefit the Church, and I have seen positive signs of their "softening" some of their harshness and bitter zeal. It's very tempting to become bitter against those who attack you, and even more against those who attack the faith (as many anti-EENS types do). St. Jerome had words for some heretics that make anything the Dimond Brothers have said look tame. I think their core problem is that they don't make any nuances regarding the various "notes" of error, calling every manner of error "heresy", even when they're not heresy in the strict sense, but a lesser degree of error, and also making little or no allowance for material error and confusion, instead attributing "bad will" to those who are in error. While certainly it's often the case that there's some bad will, we can't really know that most of the time for any specific case, since it's ultimately in the internal forum that only God can judge.
And so the major failing of the Dimond Brothers, that bitter zeal, can be seen in Jorge's attacks against the Dimond Brothers, or when he called someone an "evil treacherous woman" in his videos. At that point, I see the dispute between the two reducing to a disagreement over C'D and a few other issues, while the style is the same on both sides.
I will say, however, that I've noticed a very welcome "softening" on the part of the Dimond Brothers. I've seen several errors where Brother Peter was just about to say the "h"-word ("heretic") but you can see him holding back and instead calling the man confused and in contradiction (such as in his video about Taylor Marshall). As I said, no public figures have been as ruthlessly excoriated, despised, derided, and mocked than the Dimond Brothers, so it would take some heroic virtue to avoid the temptation of becoming bitter.
I do give Jorge credit for defending their being monks against the bitter fools who insist on deriding them as "Fred and Bob". If they're going to do that, then they'd better start calling every Traditional nun "Marge and Beth", etc. ... since no Traditional group has proper canonical establishment, from the CMRI Sisters to Father Kelly's Sisters, and even the SSPX Sisters. So unless these buffoons start attacking those Sisters, they need to shut up with their stupid and uncharitable derision of the Dimond Brothers, who deserve the same respect that one would accord to Sister Mary Joseph of the CMRI or Father Kelly's nuns. In fact, the Dimond Brothers are probably even more legit, since the Benedictine Order is unique in that they've never had a formal structure and even the Benedictines say that anyone who professes to live the rule of St. Benedict can rightly call themselves Benedictines. I've cited the Catholic Encyclopedia to this effect, and the modern NO Benedictine Congregation in Rome affirmed this, that if they profess to live by the rule of St. Benedict, they can rightly call themselves Benedictines. While the new Benedictines are likely steeped in heresy, this seems to back up pre-V2 sources that say the same thing and they probably at least still now the history and structure of the order. Also, against those who claim they don't live by the Rule of St. Benedict (an unproven assertion), the Rule was actually mean to be adapted and modified for various circuмstances. In fact, the founder of Most Holy Family Monastery, Brother Joseph Natale, actually started his Benedictine house before Vatican II to serve as a house for disabled men ... with an obvious adapted rule. It was only later that he and his monastery became identified as a Traditionalist.
-
I do give Jorge credit for defending their being monks against the bitter fools who insist on deriding them as "Fred and Bob". If they're going to do that, then they'd better start calling every Traditional nun "Marge and Beth", etc. ... since no Traditional group has proper canonical establishment, from the CMRI Sisters to Father Kelly's Sisters, and even the SSPX Sisters. So unless these buffoons start attacking those Sisters, they need to shut up with their stupid and uncharitable derision of the Dimond Brothers, who deserve the same respect that one would accord to Sister Mary Joseph of the CMRI or Father Kelly's nuns. In fact, the Dimond Brothers are probably even more legit, since the Benedictine Order is unique in that they've never had a formal structure and even the Benedictines say that anyone who professes to live the rule of St. Benedict can rightly call themselves Benedictines. I've cited the Catholic Encyclopedia to this effect, and the modern NO Benedictine Congregation in Rome affirmed this, that if they profess to live by the rule of St. Benedict, they can rightly call themselves Benedictines. While the new Benedictines are likely steeped in heresy, this seems to back up pre-V2 sources that say the same thing and they probably at least still now the history and structure of the order. Also, against those who claim they don't live by the Rule of St. Benedict (an unproven assertion), the Rule was actually mean to be adapted and modified for various circuмstances. In fact, the founder of Most Holy Family Monastery, Brother Joseph Natale, actually started his Benedictine house before Vatican II to serve as a house for disabled men ... with an obvious adapted rule. It was only later that he and his monastery became identified as a Traditionalist.
It appears to me (but not said) that those who insist that the dimonds are not monks is due to their worldly behaviour and website. Since normally speaking, monks don't concern themselves with worldly affairs.
-
Would you say two sisters who put on nun's habits and made their house into a convent are truly nuns or Sarabaite nuns? No, of course not. They both falsely call themselves "Brothers" and wear the garb in their effort to lend credence to their lie. I will call them Fred and Bob, you are free to call the two whatever you like, even Brothers if that makes you feel better.
At any rate, they've touted cuм ex Apostolatus Officio in their efforts to judge that popes are not popes just as if they can, but, conveniently forgetting that they were NO heretics before they discovered tradition," seest not the beam that is in their own eye, they are condemned by the same cuм ex....
[Anysoever who] (b) in the future also shall [so] deviate, or fall into heresy ...in addition to the aforementioned
sentences, censures and penalties, shall also automatically, without any exercise of law or application of
fact, be thoroughly, entirely and perpetually deprived of: their.. Monasteries, benefices and Ecclesiastical offices, be they functional or sinecures, secular or religious of whatsoever Order, which they may have obtained by any concessions whatsoever... - cuм ex
If cuм ex is still in force (it isn't but if it is as they say) then they could never be Brothers of any kind.
Two things:
1.- cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio is in force still, since many of the things that legal bull covers are doctrinal, so even if Pope Pius XII could had abrogated some of the process inherent of that bull, a Pope cannot make null and void an eclesiological bull that touches on doctrine.
Just like a legal bull that pertains to using natural water in baptisms could not be override by any Pope to change the matter of the sacrament. The fundamental legal ecclesiological principle that a Heretic cannot be Pope cannot be override in full.
2.- If memory serves, in the council of Florence, when the re-union with the (at the time) eastern schismatics was being discussed, the titles of monks were respected in writing. So, if your argument is that heresy means that a monk is not a monk, then I just proved that wrong. Being a monk could be akin to someone who choses to become a doctor, is a career, or a permanent choice of occupation, but even if a monk is not a Catholic, it has been notable accepted by the Catholic Church that their choice of occupation is different than that of a layman.
Is not that calling them Brothers makes me feel good. As you can read in the above posts, I am not precisely a supporter of that wicked sarabaite monastery.
-
Thanks for your information Jorge. I know digital logos used to be a dimondite and he had said several negative things about them on twitter (before he deleted his profile), his input would be useful here but unfortunately he has had enough of Catholic infighting so he 'took a break' (hopefully he is still Catholic).
I agree that many of their videos reference their own prophecies which I find annoying. Some of their material I do find useful however. When I first found them I did not know that "preparation for death" was by St. Alphonsus, it would have been nice to know so I could read more of his works, though I found him out later anyway (Deo gratias).
The state of the Church is quite pitiful, out of all the trad groups only the dimonds are against BoD, BoB, and II, and they are a cult...
Yesterday when I was going out and about doing some chores on the store I remember one exception to my above statement about the Dimonds, which I want to add as a correction.
When the Dimonds had said to some couples that they should water-baptize their children, and they do, and that child dies after baptism, then, in such a case, that soul was a Catholic in the state of grace and innocence and is now in heaven. They did mention such specific case in one video years ago, so that would be enduring spiritual true goodness that they did took a part in.
I think these good actions could play a role in a future conversion of them, but so far God seems to not be inclined to that course of action, since they only become worse year by year.
Also, similar instances of encouraging baptisms on children and then children dying due to diseases are also common between people who go to the SSPX, and even novus ordo conservatives, so is not as if this type of enduring good spiritual action is uniquely Dimondite, but still wanted to add it for the sake of precision.
-
Well, I for one have no animosity against the Dimond Brothers. I was a dogmatic SV for a time, so I know how one can go down that path, so not only "there but for the grace of God go I" but "there I was myself". I pray for them, and have no ill will toward them, despite the fact that they've sent me a few very harsh e-mails. But I don't take things like that personally. I've also been ridiculed by Father Cekada, but I hold no ill will toward him either and, despite the fact that I disagree with quite a few of his positions, I give him credit where he does good work. Dimond Brothers have done some great work that benefit the Church, and I have seen positive signs of their "softening" some of their harshness and bitter zeal. It's very tempting to become bitter against those who attack you, and even more against those who attack the faith (as many anti-EENS types do). St. Jerome had words for some heretics that make anything the Dimond Brothers have said look tame. I think their core problem is that they don't make any nuances regarding the various "notes" of error, calling every manner of error "heresy", even when they're not heresy in the strict sense, but a lesser degree of error, and also making little or no allowance for material error and confusion, instead attributing "bad will" to those who are in error. While certainly it's often the case that there's some bad will, we can't really know that most of the time for any specific case, since it's ultimately in the internal forum that only God can judge.
And so the major failing of the Dimond Brothers, that bitter zeal, can be seen in Jorge's attacks against the Dimond Brothers, or when he called someone an "evil treacherous woman" in his videos. At that point, I see the dispute between the two reducing to a disagreement over C'D and a few other issues, while the style is the same on both sides.
I will say, however, that I've noticed a very welcome "softening" on the part of the Dimond Brothers. I've seen several errors where Brother Peter was just about to say the "h"-word ("heretic") but you can see him holding back and instead calling the man confused and in contradiction (such as in his video about Taylor Marshall). As I said, no public figures have been as ruthlessly excoriated, despised, derided, and mocked than the Dimond Brothers, so it would take some heroic virtue to avoid the temptation of becoming bitter.
I do give Jorge credit for defending their being monks against the bitter fools who insist on deriding them as "Fred and Bob". If they're going to do that, then they'd better start calling every Traditional nun "Marge and Beth", etc. ... since no Traditional group has proper canonical establishment, from the CMRI Sisters to Father Kelly's Sisters, and even the SSPX Sisters. So unless these buffoons start attacking those Sisters, they need to shut up with their stupid and uncharitable derision of the Dimond Brothers, who deserve the same respect that one would accord to Sister Mary Joseph of the CMRI or Father Kelly's nuns. In fact, the Dimond Brothers are probably even more legit, since the Benedictine Order is unique in that they've never had a formal structure and even the Benedictines say that anyone who professes to live the rule of St. Benedict can rightly call themselves Benedictines. I've cited the Catholic Encyclopedia to this effect, and the modern NO Benedictine Congregation in Rome affirmed this, that if they profess to live by the rule of St. Benedict, they can rightly call themselves Benedictines. While the new Benedictines are likely steeped in heresy, this seems to back up pre-V2 sources that say the same thing and they probably at least still now the history and structure of the order. Also, against those who claim they don't live by the Rule of St. Benedict (an unproven assertion), the Rule was actually mean to be adapted and modified for various circuмstances. In fact, the founder of Most Holy Family Monastery, Brother Joseph Natale, actually started his Benedictine house before Vatican II to serve as a house for disabled men ... with an obvious adapted rule. It was only later that he and his monastery became identified as a Traditionalist.
Ladislaus. I sense in your writing a style that talks to the crowd and in general, when it was my understanding (perhaps erroneusly) that we were talking one-to-one.
Anywho, could you please give me the specific citation of the video you mentioned that supposedly say that I revealed my sins in my website in 2014? That is a very important piece of data that I wish to have and I think is reasonable for me to obtain.
-
It appears to me (but not said) that those who insist that the dimonds are not monks is due to their worldly behaviour and website. Since normally speaking, monks don't concern themselves with worldly affairs.
I think similarly, when one person goes to a traditionally inclined latin mass only community that has monks, they do (physically) seem to follow a lifestyle of a monk. Like eating at certain hours, praying in community, etc
However, all the people that had physically been at Fillmore (Fr. Wathen, Eric Hoyle, Richard Ibranyi, and many others) had always say that it never when they were there resembled ANY monastic-anything,... no schedule, no prayer time at certain hours, not even sleeping at certain hours (many all nighters have been independently confirmed by many who calls them from europe not knowing the time difference and finding them awake, or Steven Speray who mentioned that Sarabaite Pete contacted him at 2 or 3 in the morning to do a debate on the spot.)
Ladislaus talks about their schedules and monastic life with the confidence of a very close friend, but yet, he himself mentions that he is far apart and estranged from the Dimonds inner circle, that they had told him that he is on the road to hell, etc (I read something like that in other of his posts).
And here I am, a person who was on the Dimondite cult for 8 years, who got explicit and direct permission to ask for donations in public by sarabaite mike himself, who brother in law is still on the Fillmore cult, to whom I communicated almost daily and who also confirmed to me their non-schedule via phone call way before I left the cult (in about 2015). And yet, he simply refuses to believe it.
But understanding all of that, it does take quite a bit to still understand their monasticism (even if completely corrupted by their own pride and malice) without also thinking what they are doing is respectable, as Ladislaus (without proof and without any close friendship or even a working relationship with the Dimonds) seem to imply.
Many saints condemned many religious of their time, Savoranola was excommunicated if memory serves, many times the Holy Inquisition condemned and uprooted entire monasteries for different reasons, but people in 2023 still want to think that being a monk automatically means a morally good person that should be venerated on the spot. And if anything, the past 70 years is just confirmation and proof that that underlying assumption could lead to catastrophe.
-
Two things:
1.- cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio is in force still, since many of the things that legal bull covers are doctrinal, so even if Pope Pius XII could had abrogated some of the process inherent of that bull, a Pope cannot make null and void an eclesiological bull that touches on doctrine.
Just like a legal bull that pertains to using natural water in baptisms could not be override by any Pope to change the matter of the sacrament. The fundamental legal ecclesiological principle that a Heretic cannot be Pope cannot be override in full.
2.- If memory serves, in the council of Florence, when the re-union with the (at the time) eastern schismatics was being discussed, the titles of monks were respected in writing. So, if your argument is that heresy means that a monk is not a monk, then I just proved that wrong. Being a monk could be akin to someone who choses to become a doctor, is a career, or a permanent choice of occupation, but even if a monk is not a Catholic, it has been notable accepted by the Catholic Church that their choice of occupation is different than that of a layman.
Is not that calling them Brothers makes me feel good. As you can read in the above posts, I am not precisely a supporter of that wicked sarabaite monastery.
Pope Leo XIII made John Henry Newman, who was once an Anglican priest, a Cardinal. If it was still in force in 1879, then Pope Leo XIII is guilty of a horrendous blunder, was self excommunicated and therefore never a pope at all.
Being that the election of popes is an act of administration and not one of Divine appointment, even Fr. Cekada agrees that according to the law since Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Apostolicae Sede), heretics can indeed be elected popes, and the abrogation of cuм ex was part of that law.
But in order to maintain their sede narrative, Fred and Bob maintain cuм ex is still in force, in doing so they cut their own throats in so far as them using the title of "Brother" as if they could be monastic brothers after being NO heretics.
-
Well, I for one have no animosity against the Dimond Brothers. I was a dogmatic SV for a time, so I know how one can go down that path, so not only "there but for the grace of God go I" but "there I was myself". I pray for them, and have no ill will toward them, despite the fact that they've sent me a few very harsh e-mails.
You might not have anymosity towards them, but they (according to you) have an animosity towards you. Either they are right on that animosity (and wouldn't prudence mean you need to change) or they are wrong and sinning against you. And if so, where is the respectable monk then?
Seems that either way you respect them in a incoherent way, saying they are sort of great people but not hearing their advice on you. If you don't believe their assesment on you, why would you value their charachter as great overall?
Doesn't make any sense. But I had come across many people with similar incoherent attachments to the Dimonds, some are still dimondites and think similarly irrational stuff.
Also, the crux of the matter is not if you forgive and forget, but the dishonor to God they do in many ways (Like putting the Blessed Sacrament on a closet), and if that doesn't concern you or interests you, that's really bad.
Meaning, that the animosity that the dimonds have for souls, against the saints (by stealing their writings) and God (with the disrepect towards the Divine Host) should prompt some indignation and action from people who know them. But this is rarely the case unfortunately.
We have the influencers that we deserve, no doubt.
-
I will say, however, that I've noticed a very welcome "softening" on the part of the Dimond Brothers. I've seen several errors where Brother Peter was just about to say the "h"-word ("heretic") but you can see him holding back and instead calling the man confused and in contradiction (such as in his video about Taylor Marshall). As I said, no public figures have been as ruthlessly excoriated, despised, derided, and mocked than the Dimond Brothers, so it would take some heroic virtue to avoid the temptation of becoming bitter.
I had noticed a similar exterior change in their tone to more neutral. Which if I am totally honest I think it coincides to the rise of public outcry for their many sins. People like me, about a dozen of ex-dimondites on twitter, mark nanneman (currently he is novus ordo but did a long docuмentary against them) and the father of Jeremy Austin push towards exposing their nonsense and it seems that it did an effect, but for that I would tell you what I told my wife about a year ago when we noticed that shift in tone: (paraphrasing)
"If I behave badly for decades and no one challenges me, and then a lot of people challenge me and then I change due to that challenge. How much spiritual merit I have? The answer is none. Since the change is mechanically driven by the exterior pressure. But not for internal conversion"
To add to that argument, one can just check the excessive animosity that the Dimonds still publicly have towards all these people (including me), to see how much they resent us and hate our guts.
-
Pope Leo XIII made John Henry Newman, who was once an Anglican priest, a Cardinal. If it was still in force in 1879, then Pope Leo XIII is guilty of a horrendous blunder, was self excommunicated and therefore never a pope at all.
Being that the election of popes is an act of administration and not one of Divine appointment, even Fr. Cekada agrees that according to the law since Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Apostolicae Sede), heretics can indeed be elected popes, and the abrogation of cuм ex was part of that law.
But in order to maintain their sede narrative, Fred and Bob maintain cuм ex is still in force, in doing so they cut their own throats in so far as them using the title of "Brother" as if they could be monastic brothers after being NO heretics.
John Henry Newman became a Cardinal after he publicly claimed to abandon anglicanism and publicly claiming to becoming a Catholic. Is unclear if you are arguing that he made a protestant a cardinal.
If the argument is that John Henry Newman was a heretic, then please elaborate on your case, since otherwise I would had to assume what's your position exactly. (I am not a Newman fan myself).
If we assume heresy as error in judgment that is contrary to a dogma, then, material heretics are also heretical in the strict sense, but such material heresy doesn't sever from the Church, but the Bull deals with obstinate heretics, which would mean not only does who are material heretics.
Example, the dogma of the immaculate conception was define in the XIX century, but a dogma is a dogma because it has always being true, and there was entire philosophical schools that for centuries rejected on philosophical grounds the immaculate conception, but that material heresy didn't expel them from the body of the Church, because a formal ex cathedra declaration hadn't occur yet.
The sedevacantist meme is not a dimondite meme, your phrasing of "fred and bob try to maintain their narrative by...." is factually incorrect, sedevacantism is around since the earliest years after vatican II, I think the first public sedevacantist was a japanese journalist who attended vatican 2,... so is not something even purely USA-driven. Is more like a decentralized collaborative open source program.
Again, council of Florence acknowleging heretics to be monks means that your argument is not correct.
-
Many saints condemned many religious of their time, Savoranola was excommunicated if memory serves, many times the Holy Inquisition condemned and uprooted entire monasteries for different reasons, but people in 2023 still want to think that being a monk automatically means a morally good person that should be venerated on the spot. And if anything, the past 70 years is just confirmation and proof that that underlying assumption could lead to catastrophe.
Both groups seem to have the same working understanding of what monasticism is: Meaning, a monk is automatically good. So the SSPX and other trad incs seem to think that the main way to refuse respect towards the dimonds is by saying that they are not monks at all. And voila, no respect deserved.
And dimondites, people like ladislaus, etc, seem to defend their monasticism as a way to "prove" that they are good and worthy of great default respect.
While me, on the corner, defend their monastic status while attacking their wickedness and saying all the horrible disrepectul things they do on a daily basis.
Monk doesn't always equal good folks, wake up!
bad monks have existed in all the centuries, arrio was a monk if memory serves....
ughhhhh
-
But in order to maintain their sede narrative, Fred and Bob maintain cuм ex is still in force, in doing so they cut their own throats in so far as them using the title of "Brother" as if they could be monastic brothers after being NO heretics.
To be fair, Brother Peter addressed this issue in the Cassman debate. He said the disciplinary elements of the bull were abrogated, however it still contained elements of divine law...
-
John Henry Newman became a Cardinal after he publicly claimed to abandon anglicanism and publicly claiming to becoming a Catholic. Is unclear if you are arguing that he made a protestant a cardinal.
If the argument is that John Henry Newman was a heretic, then please elaborate on your case, since otherwise I would had to assume what's your position exactly. (I am not a Newman fan myself).
If we assume heresy as error in judgment that is contrary to a dogma, then, material heretics are also heretical in the strict sense, but such material heresy doesn't sever from the Church, but the Bull deals with obstinate heretics, which would mean not only does who are material heretics.
Example, the dogma of the immaculate conception was define in the XIX century, but a dogma is a dogma because it has always being true, and there was entire philosophical schools that for centuries rejected on philosophical grounds the immaculate conception, but that material heresy didn't expel them from the body of the Church, because a formal ex cathedra declaration hadn't occur yet.
cuм ex was abrogated over a century ago, is therefore no longer in force, probably has not been in force for a long time prior to that. Pope Leo XIII knew this re: Cardinal Newman. If it were in force back then, then per cuм ex, Newman could have not been made a cardinal because as an Anglican priest, he was known to have deviated from the faith - cuм ex expressly forbids what Pope Leo XIII did.
No, the Bull does not deal only with obstinate heretics, it plainly states many times that it applies to anysoever who deviated from the faith. The part that deals specifically with the pope is in the first paragraph, there he says that the pope may be "contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith." This is what R&R do without referencing cuм ex.
Fred and Bob reference cuм ex as tho it is still in force.
cuм ex states anyone who is even suspected of deviating from the faith cannot be a member of the clergy in any capacity no matter the title. As such, being they were NO heretics prior to discovering tradition, per cuм ex they cannot even be "Sarabaite Brothers."
The sedevacantist meme is not a dimondite meme, your phrasing of "fred and bob try to maintain their narrative by...." is factually incorrect, sedevacantism is around since the earliest years after vatican II, I think the first public sedevacantist was a japanese journalist who attended vatican 2,... so is not something even purely USA-driven. Is more like a decentralized collaborative open source program.
Again, council of Florence acknowleging heretics to be monks means that your argument is not correct.
The whole idea of sedeism is new, as in not traditional. I agree 100% with Matthew in that the position is altogether useless for salvation, all it has is the propensity to disunify the faithful. Beyond that it serves no other purpose. To me, Fred and Bob exemplify this.
-
cuм ex was abrogated over a century ago, is therefore no longer in force, probably has not been in force for a long time prior to that. Pope Leo XIII knew this re: Cardinal Newman. If it were in force back then, then per cuм ex, Newman could have not been made a cardinal because as an Anglican priest, he was known to have deviated from the faith - cuм ex expressly forbids what Pope Leo XIII did.
C'mon man... You can't be serious?
-
C'mon man... You can't be serious?
Per cuм ex, anysoever who ever deviated from the faith is forbidden from from holding any office. So I'm as serious as cuм ex.
-
5:25 - 5:35 ... states that Jorge revealed his personal issues on his Youtube channel in 2014 before MHFH did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdv2OZgBVg
-
5:25 - 5:35 ... states that Jorge revealed his personal issues on his Youtube channel in 2014 before MHFH did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdv2OZgBVg
Wow... It's quite sad to see how much of a slave of the Devil this poor guy has become. On the other hand, this further confirms the brothers have the truth.
Jorge, there's still time to change your ways.
-
Per cuм ex, anysoever who ever deviated from the faith is forbidden from from holding any office. So I'm as serious as cuм ex.
I'm sure you're just exaggerating at this point.
-
cuм ex was abrogated over a century ago, is therefore no longer in force, probably has not been in force for a long time prior to that. Pope Leo XIII knew this re: Cardinal Newman. If it were in force back then, then per cuм ex, Newman could have not been made a cardinal because as an Anglican priest, he was known to have deviated from the faith - cuм ex expressly forbids what Pope Leo XIII did.
No, the Bull does not deal only with obstinate heretics, it plainly states many times that it applies to anysoever who deviated from the faith. The part that deals specifically with the pope is in the first paragraph, there he says that the pope may be "contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith." This is what R&R do without referencing cuм ex.
Fred and Bob reference cuм ex as tho it is still in force.
cuм ex states anyone who is even suspected of deviating from the faith cannot be a member of the clergy in any capacity no matter the title. As such, being they were NO heretics prior to discovering tradition, per cuм ex they cannot even be "Sarabaite Brothers."
The whole idea of sedeism is new, as in not traditional. I agree 100% with Matthew in that the position is altogether useless for salvation, all it has is the propensity to disunify the faithful. Beyond that it serves no other purpose. To me, Fred and Bob exemplify this.
On one side you say cuм Ex has been abrogated, but part of the argument is also that deviating from the faith means any deviation whatsoever even if not obstinate.
I have read the Bull several times, and it makes it plenty clear that is talking about obstinate heretics, why? Because only obstinate heretics are legally referred to as heretics in public docuмents, when it was people less than full blown heretics, the terms used were "erroneous" "scandalous to pious ears" "rash" and similar other determinations, these were used for people who fell into error but perhaps remain catholic, or people who were excomunicated but had some path toward being reunited easier than a full blown heretic.
If we go by the "any error whatsoever" idea, then we would find ourselves quickly going to Ibranyi-town, since doctrinal errors happened in all the centuries of the Church (Ibranyi seems to be of the idea that Popes only exist till the 9th century), there had been errors on the immaculate conception publicly displayed for centuries in universities, errors on ensoulment, errors on jurisdiction (gallicanism, emperor vs Pope controversies, etc) errors on the Biblical canon (with St. Jerome denouncing some canonical and infallible books if memory serves) with Cardinals like Cajetan not accepting the canon even during his time (in 1400s) even after Pope St. Damaso had already established the canon infallibly in a council. (the controversy didn't fully end till the Council of Trent).
So if any error in doctrine means you are out, then no one will remain standing, and Ibranyi has been correct. Which is obviously not the case and I don't think you are a follower of Ibranyi. Is just that the parameters of your criticism are so narrow and far reaching in consequences, that its application would make the whole history of the Church seem as if the Mormons are right (which they are not, obviously).
On the sarabaite brothers, I just mention the Council of Florence on heretical people (at the time) who were respected in their monastic titles. You don't even seem to want to acknowledge in your mental inbox to have receive such piece of information, but anyway, I state it again.
-
The sedevacantist meme is not a dimondite meme, your phrasing of "fred and bob try to maintain their narrative by...." is factually incorrect, sedevacantism is around since the earliest years after vatican II, I think the first public sedevacantist was a japanese journalist who attended vatican 2,... so is not something even purely USA-driven. Is more like a decentralized collaborative open source program.
Since, as you say, sedevacantism has been around since the Vatican 2, that would mean that it isn't at all Traditional," right? Not that you or anyone else has said that it's traditional, I'm just pointing it out. It's something of a novelty that has arisen due to the serious problems of Vatican ll and the conciliar church.
Your description of sedevacantism being more like a "decentralized collaborative open source program" makes a certain amount of sense.
-
5:25 - 5:35 ... states that Jorge revealed his personal issues on his Youtube channel in 2014 before MHFH did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdv2OZgBVg
Happy to clarify then:
This is the transcript of the section you mention:
starting at 5:03
"This shows Jorge pride and desire to be regarded, instead of fixing his own life, he jumps righty then to instruct others (screenshot of my website Rex Israel is shown), also, in 2012, when he started his quote apostolate, he had a major problem with impurity and even pornography, this is a quote from a 2014 email that Jorge has made completely public on his youtube channel:
quote: Unfortunately yeah, I had a real problem with impure images and pornography, im being a slave of that sin my whole life end quote.
It takes a lot of pride.... 5:37 mark"
So, having been involved directly in the context, for the things as they happened during 2012 to 2020, this is what is being stated:
1.- The screenshot could potential misled people (as it apparently misled you) to think that my website was the way or the vehicle in which I shared that information regarding my sins. But as you can read above, the transcript and the section of the video talks about "he started his quote apostolate" William knows (but you, Ladislaus, didn't) that that dimondite aspotolate, was my youtube channel, so although is not super clear, both william and I know this, but the screenshot could potential make others assume it was on the website, but the website didn't exist till 2017.
2.- On the youtube channel I published more than one thousand pro-dimondite videos and didn't even got into personal ideas about me, other people or anyone for that matter, if I even attacked anyone it was public figure of politics or entertainment, so no disclosement of any sort happened there.
3.- The disclosement happened to the dimonds alone, on their email adress in a conversion that they cut out of all the context that could potentially reduced their guilt in the mortal sin of detraction that they committed, since in the chain of emails I disclosed it is shown positive-looking comments coming from the Dimonds toward me and my actions after I disclosed these sins. This can also be verified on the video of william quoted above, since you can see the screenshot is that of an email and it even shows the email adress (partially) of the dimonds. You can see it says "mhfm1"
4.- When William say that I disclosed the emails on my youtube channel, he referred to the video of May 2020, nor to the initial phase of youtube channel as a pro-dimondite channel in 2014.
Having clarified that, could you please publicly acknowledge that you misinterpreted all of that?
-
Wow... It's quite sad to see how much of a slave of the Devil this poor guy has become. On the other hand, this further confirms the brothers have the truth.
Jorge, there's still time to change your ways.
You hadn't watched that video yet? It is a very prominent example of what not to do as a dimondite, on both sides of the equation, me trusting them initially as charitable, tender, spiritually adept fathers, and they destroying my charachter in such a deranged way even if it will cost them their souls for eternity.
I even linked the video when I made a partial response to some of the points. It is also relevant how they cut off almost all the email sections that made me look good or not as crazy as their taste, out of context 101.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVeHgPFWJiA
If you want to follow the Dimonds after knowing even this part of bad things they do (not only against me, but saints and God in the Blessed Sacrament) you certainly deserve them).
-
Since, as you say, sedevacantism has been around since the Vatican 2, that would mean that it isn't at all Traditional," right? Not that you or anyone else has said that it's traditional, I'm just pointing it out. It's something of a novelty that has arisen due to the serious problems of Vatican ll and the conciliar church.
Your description of sedevacantism being more like a "decentralized collaborative open source program" makes a certain amount of sense.
What is traditional is the process to which we can identify antipopes. Meaning, if a purported Pope is not a Catholic, he cannot be a Pope.
Controversies around antipopes had occured in many centuries of the Church, and many saints got involved in many of these.
Most of the time was people lashing out at people who claimed to be Pope but are currently deemed correctly as antipopes. And the way to identify such cases of usurpation was mostly about doctrine.
So, the general principle is a Catholic principle, has been around for the earlier antipopes attempts at usurpation, and is nothing novel in that sense.
What is novel is that the heretical side sustained a fleeting social victory for entire decades, that is unprecedented.
-
What is traditional is the process to which we can identify antipopes. Meaning, if a purported Pope is not a Catholic, he cannot be a Pope.
Controversies around antipopes had occured in many centuries of the Church, and many saints got involved in many of these.
Most of the time was people lashing out at people who claimed to be Pope but are currently deemed correctly as antipopes. And the way to identify such cases of usurpation was mostly about doctrine.
So, the general principle is a Catholic principle, has been around for the earlier antipopes attempts at usurpation, and is nothing novel in that sense.
What is novel is that the heretical side sustained a fleeting social victory for entire decades, that is unprecedented.
I don't think that it's novel that the heretical side has sustained a social victory for entire decades. The Arian Crisis produced the same, even though Pope wasn't involved.
-
You hadn't watched that video yet? It is a very prominent example of what not to do as a dimondite, on both sides of the equation, me trusting them initially as charitable, tender, spiritually adept fathers, and they destroying my charachter in such a deranged way even if it will cost them their souls for eternity.
I even linked the video when I made a partial response to some of the points. It is also relevant how they cut off almost all the email sections that made me look good or not as crazy as their taste, out of context 101.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVeHgPFWJiA
If you want to follow the Dimonds after knowing even this part of bad things they do (not only against me, but saints and God in the Blessed Sacrament) you certainly deserve them).
Marulus, in my brief experience as ex-Dimondite, (2020 till present) I have seen first hand how the video of William eats away at the conscience of dimondites.
If they hate me, they rejoice in my destruction, having falsely believed that I deserve as much derision and humilliation as possible. But then what?
What when you encounter others who attack the Dimonds over their disgusting HABIT of detraction (because they had done it not only to me, but also to Jeremy Austin, a person who they punch down on the e-exchanges, and others) I had seen dimondites unable to reconcile the immoral rot of the Dimonds leaving them only months after enthusiastically agreeing with said video. And even later attacking them for their sin of detraction. (although most of them never apologize for having been accesory to sin and committing sin themselves by agreeing and amplyifing such sin).
What then when you fall in that sin? if you fall? that sin is just a universal sad occurence on the 99.88% of the male population (and even a big chunk of the female population with access to mass media). That when the self-loating of such fall also encompasses the nagging realization that you cannot trust the dimonds or ask for help in confidence to overcome such sin to ANYONE in that cult. It east away at you. I have personally witnessed it.
Part of the strategy with disclosing such sin was to split my family, since the letter was sent to my wife's whatsapp account directly and not to me. Are you okay with my children growing out without a father on top of the other things? And providentially happened, that some of the leaked emails who composed that video of William Burke came from some close ex-friends, like Chris White (the one who made the video about tradcathknight, the australian dimondite) and his wife Jaclyn White. And some years later it turn out that their relationship became worse, since Jaclyn White (according to Chris White) "became a heretic" which means that she left the cult.
Jaclyn White didn't contact us or did anything to repair the damage that she is bound to repair, and we tried to contact her and she didn't reply, but it isn't interesting how what they plotted to achieve (to dismantle my family) happened to them instead?
It really makes you think.
Enjoying your puritanical schadenfreude, it is short lived.
-
I don't think that it's novel that the heretical side has sustained a social victory for entire decades. The Arian Crisis produced the same, even though Pope wasn't involved.
True, arrianism supported big social heretical consensus for quite a bit, minus the Pope and some courageous saints and Catholics.
-
True, arrianism supported big social heretical consensus for quite a bit, minus the Pope and some courageous saints and Catholics.
Yes, and that is why I find it amazing that the Council of Nicaea was able to deal with and condemn Arianism, even though most of the bishops were Arain.
-
You hadn't watched that video yet? It is a very prominent example of what not to do as a dimondite, on both sides of the equation, me trusting them initially as charitable, tender, spiritually adept fathers, and they destroying my charachter in such a deranged way even if it will cost them their souls for eternity.
I don't know. It sounds like you basically started it, attacking them for not believing in the COVID Pandemic, and then made statements like how you're going to spend the rest of your life making videos attacking them.
-
It appears to me (but not said) that those who insist that the dimonds are not monks is due to their worldly behaviour and website. Since normally speaking, monks don't concern themselves with worldly affairs.
What worldly behaviors? Religious aren't all necessarily contemplative. Benedictines ran schools and did all manner of things. There's no one mold for what Benedictines are supposed to do.
No, those who insist the Dimonds are not monks just keep saying that out of sheer contempt for them. If they were a middle-of-the-road Trad group, you wouldn't hear this.
-
The screenshot could potential misled people (as it apparently misled you) to think that my website was the way or the vehicle in which I shared that information regarding my sins. But as you can read above, the transcript and the section of the video talks about "he started his quote apostolate" William knows (but you, Ladislaus, didn't) that that dimondite aspotolate, was my youtube channel, so although is not super clear, both william and I know this, but the screenshot could potential make others assume it was on the website, but the website didn't exist till 2017.
They said that you posted this on your Youtube channel in 2014 and not on whatever website. Screenshot showed it having something like 833 views and being posted in 2014 ... and therefore has nothing to do with your 2017 website. Unless it's Photoshopped, you're the one who's twisting the truth here by putting this misdirection out there about your 2017 website.
-
They said that you posted this on your Youtube channel in 2014 and not on whatever website. Screenshot showed it having something like 833 views and being posted in 2014 ... and therefore has nothing to do with your 2017 website. Unless it's Photoshopped, you're the one who's twisting the truth here by putting this misdirection out there about your 2017 website.
Where does this image have views on it? Mhfm fan has claimed that this email was made public on Jorge's youtube channel.
So;
1. Pic related is a screencap of the email.
2. Mhfm fan claims said statement was made public on Jorge youtube channel
Is there any evidence for this claim of #2?
(https://i.imgur.com/2hHMyQK.png)
-
I don't know. It sounds like you basically started it, attacking them for not believing in the COVID Pandemic, and then made statements like how you're going to spend the rest of your life making videos attacking them.
I mean, if you are willing to try to defend that a saint's glory be defiled, I am not surprised you would also take William Burke at his word without asking anything. (Mind you, your original misleading claim was unopposed for a year).
The sequence of events was as follows:
1.- I was a 1000% dimondite in 10000% good standing (from 2012 to january 2020)
2.- During February 2020, I started to become increasingly convinced covid 19 was a real and dangerous disease (which is still my current position, which I am aware is not shared by most USA-right-leaning citizens). Since at the time I was 1000% a dimondite, I thought perhaps covid 19 was a fulfillment of the false-prophetic-dimondite framework, since is dimondite canon that we are at the last chapters of apocalypse. I did change that view after leaving their cult.
3.- On my twitter account I started to publish my findings, my point of view and my research publicly. While also hand-delivered some of the strongest evidence to my Brother in Law for the Dimonds to personally check, vet, and perhaps explain away why I was wrong.
4.- During February 2020 (if memory serves) the Dimonds blocked me on twitter. At this point, other dimondites didn't knew what was brewing yet and no public position was made clear by anyone's side.
5.- During late March 2020, (if memory serves) a Dimondite that had grown as a Dimondite and who was 27 years or so in 2020, whose father had been a dimondite for decades and who is from europe (the one who can be seen in my first anti dimondite video). Contacted me to talk about covid, the dimonds, conspiracy theories, and many other things, we became friends. At the time we were both Dimondites to the full and we even told to each other that we both believed the dimonds to be the two witnesses of the apocalypse, we trade ad-hoc explanations of how they could be saintly, how the fulfillment of their 2-witnessism would come to happen, and how come they seem to (in my view) get this one wrong but at the time I truly and fully believed that the two options were that either: I was 100% wrong (and part of my motivation to share my research and point of view on twitter was to debate dimondites and people in general who thought the opposite, to see if they could convince me), or that it was part of prophetic happenings that the Dimonds should not be aware of for mysterious reasons (lol), or that perhaps the Dimonds could just allow some opinion on the matter since it is a secular issue. And since THATS WHAT THEY DID WITH THEIR VIDEO ON THE SWINE FLU EVENT years ago. But this possibility quickly became increasingly less possible, since at that time they had already blocked me (so I was in the process of being dimondite-excomunicated).
6.- In April, the excomunication occured, I doubled checked and it happened in april 2, 2020, ONE MONTH BEFORE I split from THEM. It was delivered by William Burke and you can see that it was ALL ABOUT COVID 19.
Here is the quotation of the tweet. That is still available online you want to check:
https://twitter.com/WilliamBurke25/status/1245758869093007360?t=ZuY2xOQEdTPEjHapAOAU4g&s=19
"Jorge @jorgeclave7 has started an aggresive campaign to try and convince true Catholics that "COVID-19" is not a hoax. He is a fool and he is doing the devil's work. He acts on the one hand like we need to wait and see. Yet, simultaneously he is pushing the idea that it's real."
April 2, 2020 - 11:03 am
So, some things to notice in this excomunication-tweet:
1.- I was done as a dimondite member for life. No change of ever getting back at anything like before. (this devastated me emotionally, but like a incoherent dimondite, or pro-dimondite, as you ladislaus sometimes remind me) I engage in plenty of hopium, thinking that perhaps the Dimonds were not as harsh in their assesment, or that it was just william, I was utterly wrong, the Dimonds (and I know this matter-of-factly since sometimes I was behind the scenes in such dramas) tend to have sock-puppet-dimondites they use to deliver messages they like to send to their followers, their enemies or people in general, when they want to conceal their involvement or their participation for various reasons. for instance, some time my brother in law would tell me to rebuke some specific dimondite for a specific action he saw a dimondite do on social media, without said dimondite being aware such action was mandated by my Brother in law. So this was the same and I kind of knew it, but decided to engage in hopium in order to HOPE that that was not the case.
2.- Perhaps people like you, ladislaus, don't know this, but in my experience, there is no mechanism to un-become "bad will" in the dimondite handbook. In fact, one time my brother in law told me explictly of a dimondite who had been excommunicated and then some months later begged plenty to be accepted in communion again, and he told me to "accept" him, or more specifically, to forgive him but to keep an eye on him and not to trust him like before. I even might have the email in spanish for that.
3.- It is plainly obvious that this break from communion was only due to Covid, for two reasons. Because it was AT THE TIME, the only topic in contention. And because on everything else I was a model-dimondite (I even continued to publish pro-dimondite videos even days before splitting from them.)
In fact, I was shocked that the dimondite meme against me is to first and foremost DENY, that it was about covid 19, since the fight was so mono-topical and also because that was so deceitful on their part and I was having problems adjusting to realizing the immoral deceptive practices of people I deem as amazing saints just some months prior. But my guess is that they wanted to deny it so much and so throughouly since it sounds (and it is) petty and ridiculous, that an entirely religious cult gets to excommunicate and loss many members over a purely scientifical debate.
7.- So, in this timeline we are now at beginning of april 2020, I was still a dimondite (publicly, even uploading still pro-dimondite videos on youtube and other platforms) and I had not blocked the dimonds (but they did, probably since they didn't want me to pollute their tweets or something) and william had already, DEFINITIVELY AND IRREVERSIBLE excommunicated me from the dimondite cult. I was checking my options since I was also sustaining public and multi-hour battles on twitter with dimondites over this, particularly Samuel Navarro (missing iguana on twitter, now suspended) and William and others, but all of this was over covid, and also, they were insulting me in religious terms, like a son of the devil, an immoral blind person, etc, etc,...
8.- So, in part due to the heavy mistreatment over a secular issue, the excommunication and similar stuff, the dimondite from europe who was my friend started to tell me how puzzled he was at the way the dimondites had reacted, he would attack william on whatsapp and we would talk how puzzled we were about it (if I remember correctly, I didn't even say william was a son of satan back, since at the time I still thought he was a great human being). And at that time (middle of april 2020 if I remember correctly, he told me that he knew about other instances of false prophesy he had saw in the e-exchanges and other places. He told me about the expectations of the world ending after John Paul died, the false prophesies on saying that Pope Benedict XV being the first head of the apocalypse, and similar things.
9.- It took me a whole month of soul searching, double checking, research and all of that (mind you, after the excommunication) to start to come to the realization (in private at the time) that the Dimonds were indeed (and are) false prophets and evil people. This process occurred alongside me fighting dimondites everyday over covid 19 during that whole month. But since I had many contacts of many dimondites, I was in some whatsapp and others, and people saw how much the dimondites were hating on me over a secular issue, many started to contact me directly....
(TEXT SOFTWARE IN CATHINFO SEEMS STRUGGLING, will do a part 2 of this timeline).
-
Where does this image have views on it? Mhfm fan has claimed that this email was made public on Jorge's youtube channel.
So;
1. Pic related is a screencap of the email.
2. Mhfm fan claims said statement was made public on Jorge youtube channel
Is there any evidence for this claim of #2?
Time stamp 9:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc
-
I mean, if you are willing to try to defend that a saint's glory be defiled, I am not surprised you would also take William Burke at his word without asking anything. (Mind you, your original misleading claim was unopposed for a year).
The sequence of events was as follows:
1.- I was a 1000% dimondite in 10000% good standing (from 2012 to january 2020)
2.- During February 2020, I started to become increasingly convinced covid 19 was a real and dangerous disease (which is still my current position, which I am aware is not shared by most USA-right-leaning citizens). Since at the time I was 1000% a dimondite, I thought perhaps covid 19 was a fulfillment of the false-prophetic-dimondite framework, since is dimondite canon that we are at the last chapters of apocalypse. I did change that view after leaving their cult.
3.- On my twitter account I started to publish my findings, my point of view and my research publicly. While also hand-delivered some of the strongest evidence to my Brother in Law for the Dimonds to personally check, vet, and perhaps explain away why I was wrong.
4.- During February 2020 (if memory serves) the Dimonds blocked me on twitter. At this point, other dimondites didn't knew what was brewing yet and no public position was made clear by anyone's side.
5.- During late March 2020, (if memory serves) a Dimondite that had grown as a Dimondite and who was 27 years or so in 2020, whose father had been a dimondite for decades and who is from europe (the one who can be seen in my first anti dimondite video). Contacted me to talk about covid, the dimonds, conspiracy theories, and many other things, we became friends. At the time we were both Dimondites to the full and we even told to each other that we both believed the dimonds to be the two witnesses of the apocalypse, we trade ad-hoc explanations of how they could be saintly, how the fulfillment of their 2-witnessism would come to happen, and how come they seem to (in my view) get this one wrong but at the time I truly and fully believed that the two options were that either: I was 100% wrong (and part of my motivation to share my research and point of view on twitter was to debate dimondites and people in general who thought the opposite, to see if they could convince me), or that it was part of prophetic happenings that the Dimonds should not be aware of for mysterious reasons (lol), or that perhaps the Dimonds could just allow some opinion on the matter since it is a secular issue. And since THATS WHAT THEY DID WITH THEIR VIDEO ON THE SWINE FLU EVENT years ago. But this possibility quickly became increasingly less possible, since at that time they had already blocked me (so I was in the process of being dimondite-excomunicated).
6.- In April, the excomunication occured, I doubled checked and it happened in april 2, 2020, ONE MONTH BEFORE I split from THEM. It was delivered by William Burke and you can see that it was ALL ABOUT COVID 19.
Here is the quotation of the tweet. That is still available online you want to check:
https://twitter.com/WilliamBurke25/status/1245758869093007360?t=ZuY2xOQEdTPEjHapAOAU4g&s=19
"Jorge @jorgeclave7 has started an aggresive campaign to try and convince true Catholics that "COVID-19" is not a hoax. He is a fool and he is doing the devil's work. He acts on the one hand like we need to wait and see. Yet, simultaneously he is pushing the idea that it's real."
April 2, 2020 - 11:03 am
So, some things to notice in this excomunication-tweet:
1.- I was done as a dimondite member for life. No change of ever getting back at anything like before. (this devastated me emotionally, but like a incoherent dimondite, or pro-dimondite, as you ladislaus sometimes remind me) I engage in plenty of hopium, thinking that perhaps the Dimonds were not as harsh in their assesment, or that it was just william, I was utterly wrong, the Dimonds (and I know this matter-of-factly since sometimes I was behind the scenes in such dramas) tend to have sock-puppet-dimondites they use to deliver messages they like to send to their followers, their enemies or people in general, when they want to conceal their involvement or their participation for various reasons. for instance, some time my brother in law would tell me to rebuke some specific dimondite for a specific action he saw a dimondite do on social media, without said dimondite being aware such action was mandated by my Brother in law. So this was the same and I kind of knew it, but decided to engage in hopium in order to HOPE that that was not the case.
2.- Perhaps people like you, ladislaus, don't know this, but in my experience, there is no mechanism to un-become "bad will" in the dimondite handbook. In fact, one time my brother in law told me explictly of a dimondite who had been excommunicated and then some months later begged plenty to be accepted in communion again, and he told me to "accept" him, or more specifically, to forgive him but to keep an eye on him and not to trust him like before. I even might have the email in spanish for that.
3.- It is plainly obvious that this break from communion was only due to Covid, for two reasons. Because it was AT THE TIME, the only topic in contention. And because on everything else I was a model-dimondite (I even continued to publish pro-dimondite videos even days before splitting from them.)
In fact, I was shocked that the dimondite meme against me is to first and foremost DENY, that it was about covid 19, since the fight was so mono-topical and also because that was so deceitful on their part and I was having problems adjusting to realizing the immoral deceptive practices of people I deem as amazing saints just some months prior. But my guess is that they wanted to deny it so much and so throughouly since it sounds (and it is) petty and ridiculous, that an entirely religious cult gets to excommunicate and loss many members over a purely scientifical debate.
7.- So, in this timeline we are now at beginning of april 2020, I was still a dimondite (publicly, even uploading still pro-dimondite videos on youtube and other platforms) and I had not blocked the dimonds (but they did, probably since they didn't want me to pollute their tweets or something) and william had already, DEFINITIVELY AND IRREVERSIBLE excommunicated me from the dimondite cult. I was checking my options since I was also sustaining public and multi-hour battles on twitter with dimondites over this, particularly Samuel Navarro (missing iguana on twitter, now suspended) and William and others, but all of this was over covid, and also, they were insulting me in religious terms, like a son of the devil, an immoral blind person, etc, etc,...
8.- So, in part due to the heavy mistreatment over a secular issue, the excommunication and similar stuff, the dimondite from europe who was my friend started to tell me how puzzled he was at the way the dimondites had reacted, he would attack william on whatsapp and we would talk how puzzled we were about it (if I remember correctly, I didn't even say william was a son of satan back, since at the time I still thought he was a great human being). And at that time (middle of april 2020 if I remember correctly, he told me that he knew about other instances of false prophesy he had saw in the e-exchanges and other places. He told me about the expectations of the world ending after John Paul died, the false prophesies on saying that Pope Benedict XV being the first head of the apocalypse, and similar things.
9.- It took me a whole month of soul searching, double checking, research and all of that (mind you, after the excommunication) to start to come to the realization (in private at the time) that the Dimonds were indeed (and are) false prophets and evil people. This process occurred alongside me fighting dimondites everyday over covid 19 during that whole month. But since I had many contacts of many dimondites, I was in some whatsapp and others, and people saw how much the dimondites were hating on me over a secular issue, many started to contact me directly....
(TEXT SOFTWARE IN CATHINFO SEEMS STRUGGLING, will do a part 2 of this timeline).
Wow this is great info. I did not realise the extent of mhfm being a cult.
-
Time stamp 9:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc
Sorry, I don't understand, this video is from 2020 not 2014.
-
9.- It took me a whole month of soul searching, double checking, research and all of that (mind you, after the excommunication) to start to come to the realization (in private at the time) that the Dimonds were indeed (and are) false prophets and evil people. This process occurred alongside me fighting dimondites everyday over covid 19 during that whole month. But since I had many contacts of many dimondites, I was in some whatsapp and others, and people saw how much the dimondites were hating on me over a secular issue, many started to contact me directly....
(TEXT SOFTWARE IN CATHINFO SEEMS STRUGGLING, will do a part 2 of this timeline).
And they fell in two camps mostly:
1.- "Jorge, you are wrong, but I think you are wrong in good faith, covid 19 is a hoax because (proceeds to tell data I had read myself already, most of the times, posts from news from the dimondite site that I check and double checked many times)
2.- "William treat you very badly, I don't agree with william, but I am glad the Dimonds are more wise and better and he is a nobody anyway. I agree with being able for you to speak your mind on a secular issue".
In late april 2020 (most probably the last week of april 2020), and they contacting me over this covid 19 fiasco, I started to share my findings about their false prophesies with some, and many seemed puzzled at first, some kind of agreed with me but seem unsure to fully conclude similar stuff, some got scared and run away and blocked me. Etc,...
Since most dimondites are afraid of the Dimonds (imagine, this was before their detraction modus operandi was discovered, now is more acute) they tend to no contact them, so some days past in which I was already getting to a breaking point with them.
So started on covid 19, they excommunicated me solely based on covid 19 stuff, plenty of insults over covid 19, and PROVIDENTIALLY, a totally unexpected contact with another dimondite, ADDED verifiably historical data on their false prophesies. Which obviously did an impact on me, since I fully and completely believed they were prophets sent by God.
10.- Alright, so now we get to May 3 2020, in that day the video of the sarabaite mike promoting occultism came out. It is almost a copy-paste of their same topical video of 2015, but with an added scene, in which sarabaite mike includes a person doing a pact with the devil step by step. Some people say is not a how to tutorial or is not a big deal, but I strongly disagree on this. The video is viewable for a general audience (including total pagans) and is not filtered by level of catholic education, inclination or anything. The clip includes the name of the book, the author, and a general direction on how to perform it. Including the items to use.
When I saw this the first time, with all the added context I had already explain. You can understand (perhaps) that it really did drove out of their cult. Since I already knew (for other reason, mainly, their false prophesies) that they were evil. So now they adding that made me understand how bad the whole video (including the other one published in 2015) was.
at that point I was already actively reaching out to dimondites to tell them in charity that the Dimonds were false prophets and a farce. I would tell that to anyone who would listen, I told them to Mari Realpe and Hugo Realpe, dimondites from Colombia and venezuela who were married like a month before. We had a 2 hour (at least) chat conversation over whatsapp. That I told them TO SENT to my Brother in Law, since they told me that they believed me and that they would also split from the Dimondite cult. Others were leaning that way as well when presented with the historically verifiable data around their false prophesies.
I reached out to my Brother in law specifically to see his opinion on the magicians video and he told that at the time HE HADN'T WATCH IT, which was shocking in an of itself, since I thought at the time that they were a very close monastic community, but this was the first of many confirmations to understand that even within their own sarabaite monastery, everyone is separated from each other and they don't even know in which videos anyone else is working.
Shortly after may 3 2020, perhaps on may 4 (it was really fast) they did contact Mari Realpe with the detraction letters, in which is also specified that if they want to share is good. So in May 7 2020 I made my split official with my following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc
So, nah, I didn't started it, nor temporally, nor topically, nor in who started to first calling who "son of satan" and similar insults.
To be completely frank Ladislaus, I expect you to disregard my detail accounting and I only do it for the readers who might come across it. Before having the misfortune to cross paths in this akward way I thought about consult you in your detail ideas around BOD and your opposition against it. I thought you were a good candidate for comparing theological notes in general.
-
Sorry, I don't understand, this video is from 2020 not 2014.
You asked where the screenshot came from, go to 9:30 minutes in the video.
-
What worldly behaviors? Religious aren't all necessarily contemplative. Benedictines ran schools and did all manner of things. There's no one mold for what Benedictines are supposed to do.
No, those who insist the Dimonds are not monks just keep saying that out of sheer contempt for them. If they were a middle-of-the-road Trad group, you wouldn't hear this.
Posting vile worldly news on their website everyday. They had posted scantily clad women in their website. They had posted jokes that have sɛҳuąƖ inuendo.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/2-minute-video-tsa-now-hiring/
This video has a thumbnail with the form of a male intimate part, and the whole joke is crass and vulgar.
They had posted videos on which people die on camera on 7 eleven's.
We could go on for hours. It is really amazing how someone could NOT see it.
-
They said that you posted this on your Youtube channel in 2014 and not on whatever website. Screenshot showed it having something like 833 views and being posted in 2014 ... and therefore has nothing to do with your 2017 website. Unless it's Photoshopped, you're the one who's twisting the truth here by putting this misdirection out there about your 2017 website.
The 833 views is,,... waith for it..... MY YOUTUBE VIDEO OF MAY 2020!!!!!.
It says on the screenshot "3 weeks ago" and has even a very similar thumbnail than what it currently has.
I mean, I am aware you are very deep into dimondite lore, since the dimonds already rejected you and hate your guts. But common. Just DOUBLE CHECK what are you saying.
-
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/2-minute-video-tsa-now-hiring/
This video has a thumbnail with the form of a male intimate part, and the whole joke is crass and vulgar.
You mean the thumbnail with the airplane logo?
Doesn't look like anything sɛҳuąƖ.
-
You asked where the screenshot came from, go to 9:30 minutes in the video.
I was asking for proof that Jorge publicly exposed his own sins in 2014. An email is not public.
The mhfm fan claims Jorge publicly exposed himself in 2014 but he uses an email for his example (from the 2020 video). I was wondering where the 2014 evidence was.
-
Where does this image have views on it? Mhfm fan has claimed that this email was made public on Jorge's youtube channel.
So;
1. Pic related is a screencap of the email.
2. Mhfm fan claims said statement was made public on Jorge youtube channel
Is there any evidence for this claim of #2?
(https://i.imgur.com/2hHMyQK.png)
It was made fully disclosed in may 2020 alongside all the chain of emails of 1 year, the emails they censored of their letter, that was released days prior.
On this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc&t=2s
-
It was made fully disclosed in may 2020 alongside all the chain of emails of 1 year, the emails they censored of their letter, that was released days prior.
On this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOU9gwo7qSc&t=2s
Alright just want to get the full picture. So they leaked your sins first before you publicly made the 2020 video?
I am not sure where this 2014 idea is coming from.
-
The mhfm fan claims Jorge publicly exposed himself in 2014 but he uses an email for his example (from the 2020 video). I was wondering where the 2014 evidence was.
What time stamp in the video from the mhfm fan video claims this screenshot was exposed in 2014?
What I'm understanding is that the mhfm fan video grabbed that screenshot from the 2020 YouTube video.
-
dimondite, sedevacantist, sedeplenist, cekadist, lefebvreist, etc.
It's easy to see why Digital Logos decided to take a break from forums, although I'm thinking he might have went further than that.
-
Posting vile worldly news on their website everyday. They had posted scantily clad women in their website. They had posted jokes that have sɛҳuąƖ inuendo.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/2-minute-video-tsa-now-hiring/
This video has a thumbnail with the form of a male intimate part, and the whole joke is crass and vulgar.
They had posted videos on which people die on camera on 7 eleven's.
We could go on for hours. It is really amazing how someone could NOT see it.
The autocorrect is meant to say the website of the dimonds, it automatically corrects it to schismatic, etc, etc
-
The 833 views is,,... waith for it..... MY YOUTUBE VIDEO OF MAY 2020!!!!!.
It says on the screenshot "3 weeks ago" and has even a very similar thumbnail than what it currently has.
I mean, I am aware you are very deep into dimondite lore, since the dimonds already rejected you and hate your guts. But common. Just DOUBLE CHECK what are you saying.
Correction typo: I mean, I am aware you are NOT very deep into dimondite lore....
-
Alright just want to get the full picture. So they leaked your sins first before you publicly made the 2020 video?
I am not sure where this 2014 idea is coming from.
They leaked it first, some days before the video. The video is a RESPONSE and a sort of REACTION video to their letter that they spread globally to all the dimondites they could think of.
The 2014 idea comes from LADISLAUS, unaware of dimondite lore, jumping to conclusions. I had already showing him he is factually incorrect and still nothing.
-
The autocorrect is meant to say the website of the dimonds, it automatically corrects it to schismatic, etc, etc
There is a forum setting where you can turn off the word filter.
-
There is a forum setting where you can turn off the word filter.
The word filter won't change web link changes like that.
-
The word filter won't change web link changes like that.
In the original post I can see the proper link, but in the quote it's the filtered text (because he quoted the filtered text from his side).
-
I'm sure you're just exaggerating at this point.
No, I am not exaggerating at all. Look it up in cuм ex and you will find that for those who deviated from the faith, there is no way out at all. Welcome back btw!
Nowhere in cuм ex is any abjuration accepted. Once they (any cleric or religious whatsoever) deviated form the faith, they're done. Their end is, per Pope Paul IV in cuм ex is that they are to be abandoned, shunted away to some monastery or religious house "to perform perpetual penance upon the bread of water and the water of affliction" - per cuм ex:
(ii) that, moreover, they shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be
held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this
kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or
rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or
the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive,
or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships
and positions of Imperial power; but rather that they shall be abandoned to the judgement of the
secular power to be punished after due consideration, unless there should appear in them signs of true
penitence and the fruits of worthy repentance, and, by the kindness and clemency of the See itself, they
shall have been sentenced to sequestration in any Monastery or other religious house in order to
perform perpetual penance upon the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction;
-
On one side you say cuм Ex has been abrogated, but part of the argument is also that deviating from the faith means any deviation whatsoever even if not obstinate.
Yes, that is part of the argument.
Yes, cuм ex was abrogated by Pope St. Pius X for sure, it may have been abrogated before him, I do not know. From what you say about the Council of Florence, it may have been abrogated by then, I do not know.
But Fred and Bob do not believe it was abrogated, ever. If it wasn't, then per cuм ex, they are forbidden from being Brothers.
I have read the Bull several times, and it makes it plenty clear that is talking about obstinate heretics, why? Because only obstinate heretics are legally referred to as heretics in public docuмents, when it was people less than full blown heretics, the terms used were "erroneous" "scandalous to pious ears" "rash" and similar other determinations, these were used for people who fell into error but perhaps remain catholic, or people who were excomunicated but had some path toward being reunited easier than a full blown heretic.
No, this is wrong. He mentions those who've deviated from the faith and he also mentions heretics. If you insist he only means obstinate heretics you are mistaken. What you are in fact doing, is reading meanings into words which the words do not say, while failing to advert to what the words do say.
If we go by the "any error whatsoever" idea, then we would find ourselves quickly going to Ibranyi-town, since doctrinal errors happened in all the centuries of the Church (Ibranyi seems to be of the idea that Popes only exist till the 9th century), there had been errors on the immaculate conception publicly displayed for centuries in universities, errors on ensoulment, errors on jurisdiction (gallicanism, emperor vs Pope controversies, etc) errors on the Biblical canon (with St. Jerome denouncing some canonical and infallible books if memory serves) with Cardinals like Cajetan not accepting the canon even during his time (in 1400s) even after Pope St. Damaso had already established the canon infallibly in a council. (the controversy didn't fully end till the Council of Trent)....
I do not know what you've read, but nowhere does cuм ex say "any error whatsoever," I do not know where you even get that from, cuм ex plainly says "anysoever" - meaning "anyone and everyone" - cuм ex:
"Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things."
This does not in any way imply that it is being directed only at obstinate heretics. It, as quoted, applies even to those who have confessed (abjured) their deviation, heresies, schism etc. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
-
dimondite, sedevacantist, sedeplenist, cekadist, lefebvreist, etc.
It's easy to see why Digital Logos decided to take a break from forums, although I'm thinking he might have went further than that.
DL left when he finally woke up to realize that there is a whole lot more to sedeism that is contrary to the faith than just a vacant chair. Sadly it seems that it was a shock or rude awakening for him.
-
DL left when he finally woke up to realize that there is a whole lot more to sedeism that is contrary to the faith than just a vacant chair. Sadly it seems that it was a shock or rude awakening for him.
May I ask what your stance on the situation of the Church is (sorry if going offtopic).
-
I mean, if you are willing to try to defend that a saint's glory be defiled ...
For you to make such an absurd exaggeration by characterizing the use of material from St. Alphonsus without attribution as "defiling a saint's glory", this proves to me beyond any doubt whatsoever that yours is a petty vendetta. In no way was the "glory" of St. Alphonsus "defiled". If I plagiarize someone's work for my Ph.D. thesis, I'm not in any way "defiling" the source. What's at issue there is the dishonesty on my part and the injustice of receiving a Ph.D. that I didn't earn. That's the best you could assert, that they wanted to "take credit" for the work for St. Alphonsus. But there again you're judging the internal forum. I'm sure that the Dimonds realized that many of their audience would have read St. Alphonsus and would immediately recognize the source, and they would have known they wouldn't "get away" with it.
If they could take the work of St. Alphonsus and turn it into something that benefits souls, that only redounds to the Saint's "glory," and I'm 100% certain that St. Alphonsus, were he alive today, would approve and wouldn't be bringing a civil suit for copyright infringement. In fact, I'm certain that St. Alphonsus would use modern electronic formats to get his work into the hands of as many people as possible FOR FREE. He cared only about the good of souls.
Your absurd exaggeration on this matter completely undermines your credibility.
This is also an example of an ad hominem, a personal attack meant to distract from the issue at hand. When responding to the question of whether or not you revealed your own sins publicly, THIS is your first sentence (quoted above)? That's like when we're debating Baptism of Desire, Sean Johnson starts out with deriding me about "Flat Earth".
-
Posting vile worldly news on their website everyday. They had posted scantily clad women in their website. They had posted jokes that have sɛҳuąƖ inuendo.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/2-minute-video-tsa-now-hiring/
This video has a thumbnail with the form of a male intimate part, and the whole joke is crass and vulgar.
They had posted videos on which people die on camera on 7 eleven's.
We could go on for hours. It is really amazing how someone could NOT see it.
Ridiculous. This might make them "bad Benedictines" at best, but doesn't make them non-Benedictines. That's just nonsense and more of your petty vendetta. So what? They post links to various news and current affairs articles.
Excessive prudishness is generally a consequence of many years of immersion in impurity, and your language of "a male intimate part" shows this.
-
Jorge, have you repented of your "negligent homicide" through your promotion of the COVID hoax, as a result of which many rushed out to get the jab?
-
I was asking for proof that Jorge publicly exposed his own sins in 2014. An email is not public.
The mhfm fan claims Jorge publicly exposed himself in 2014 but he uses an email for his example (from the 2020 video). I was wondering where the 2014 evidence was.
You're right that the screenshot does not appear to be from the Youtube channel. On the other hand, Jorge has yet to make a direct denial of the claim. He's spoken of his 2017 website (irrelevant), posted walls of material about MHFM being a cult, attacked the Dimonds for defiling St. Alphonsus' glory, but has not yet directly answer the question:
Jorge, recalling that lying is a sin, and would in this case also be grave calumny given the gravity of the accusation against the Dimond Brothers, did you or did you not post something in 2014 on your Youtube channel about your past sins?
-
You're right that the screenshot does not appear to be from the Youtube channel. On the other hand, Jorge has yet to make a direct denial of the claim. He's spoken of his 2017 website (irrelevant), posted walls of material about MHFM being a cult, attacked the Dimonds for defiling St. Alphonsus' glory, but has not yet directly answer the question:
Jorge, recalling that lying is a sin, and would in this case also be grave calumny given the gravity of the accusation against the Dimond Brothers, did you or did you not post something in 2014 on your Youtube channel about your past sins?
He already mentioned here
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg901467/#msg901467
It was your message here that mentions 2014
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg819411/#msg819411
So I was wrong. The mhfm fan does not claim 2014. I assumed they did, based on your post. So I will now ask you, where did you get 2014 from?
-
May I ask what your stance on the situation of the Church is (sorry if going offtopic).
The Church is in it's worse crisis ever, but as for the conciliar popes, they were/are the pope unless or until a future pope declares otherwise. If I am wrong then God will use my daily prayers for the pope for some other purpose.
I'm 63 and I've been a trad my whole life, so many of the hot topics written here on CI and other forums are not new, in fact most of the hot topics are old as the crisis itself and have been answered or addressed repeatedly for decades.
-
The Church is in it's worse crisis ever, but as for the conciliar popes, they were/are the pope unless or until a future pope declares otherwise. If I am wrong then God will use my daily prayers for the pope for some other purpose.
I'm 63 and I've been a trad my whole life, so many of the hot topics written here on CI and other forums are not new, in fact most of the hot topics are old as the crisis itself and have been answered or addressed repeatedly for decades.
Is there some kind of wiki that has already these already addressed topics written down? Because I find as a newer traditional Catholic that information is not so easy to find. That's one of the appeal of the dimonds, easy consumable information.
-
Is there some kind of wiki that has already these already addressed topics written down? Because I find as a newer traditional Catholic that information is not so easy to find. That's one of the appeal of the dimonds, easy consumable information.
I would say that the two books The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) and Who Shall Ascend? (pdf attached) cover most of the forum's hot topics that are repeatedly discussed. These two books were written as a direct result of this crisis and answers many question. Whether or not you believe the answers is another thing, but in time and perhaps with the grace of God you will find answers to many questions you probably have, written in these books.
-
But Fred and Bob do not believe it was abrogated, ever. If it wasn't, then per cuм ex, they are forbidden from being Brothers.
The Council of Florence was BEFORE the bull cuм ex. So the causality of what docuмent abrogated what doesn't even make sense.
The idea that the Bull's doctrinal content cannot be abrogated (since is doctrinal) is a standard position of sedevacantists (CMRI people, me, etc) so when you phrased it as "Fred and Bob say...." sounds out-of-context-y.
Is like taking a position of the SSPX and saying "But Fellay's and Galarreta's say xyz to try to xyz...." whereas it is well known that the SSPX have numerically plenty of followers and is not just Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarretas lonely random ideas who are being upholded.
-
Yes, that is part of the argument.
Yes, cuм ex was abrogated by Pope St. Pius X for sure, it may have been abrogated before him, I do not know. From what you say about the Council of Florence, it may have been abrogated by then, I do not know.
But Fred and Bob do not believe it was abrogated, ever. If it wasn't, then per cuм ex, they are forbidden from being Brothers.
No, this is wrong. He mentions those who've deviated from the faith and he also mentions heretics. If you insist he only means obstinate heretics you are mistaken. What you are in fact doing, is reading meanings into words which the words do not say, while failing to advert to what the words do say.
I do not know what you've read, but nowhere does cuм ex say "any error whatsoever," I do not know where you even get that from, cuм ex plainly says "anysoever" - meaning "anyone and everyone" - cuм ex:
"Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things."
This does not in any way imply that it is being directed only at obstinate heretics. It, as quoted, applies even to those who have confessed (abjured) their deviation, heresies, schism etc. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
So, just to clarify. It is your position that the Bull cuм ex apostolatus officio effectively excommunicates all the people who hold any error, and that such excommunication is only per the bull, but when the bull is abrogated all is good for the same people?
I mentioned several examples of errors hold (sometimes for centuries) by many people, like errors in the canon. Is it your position that the Bull would had applied to them? I just want to make sure if that is your position.
-
For you to make such an absurd exaggeration by characterizing the use of material from St. Alphonsus without attribution as "defiling a saint's glory", this proves to me beyond any doubt whatsoever that yours is a petty vendetta. In no way was the "glory" of St. Alphonsus "defiled". If I plagiarize someone's work for my Ph.D. thesis, I'm not in any way "defiling" the source. What's at issue there is the dishonesty on my part and the injustice of receiving a Ph.D. that I didn't earn. That's the best you could assert, that they wanted to "take credit" for the work for St. Alphonsus. But there again you're judging the internal forum. I'm sure that the Dimonds realized that many of their audience would have read St. Alphonsus and would immediately recognize the source, and they would have known they wouldn't "get away" with it.
If they could take the work of St. Alphonsus and turn it into something that benefits souls, that only redounds to the Saint's "glory," and I'm 100% certain that St. Alphonsus, were he alive today, would approve and wouldn't be bringing a civil suit for copyright infringement. In fact, I'm certain that St. Alphonsus would use modern electronic formats to get his work into the hands of as many people as possible FOR FREE. He cared only about the good of souls.
Your absurd exaggeration on this matter completely undermines your credibility.
This is also an example of an ad hominem, a personal attack meant to distract from the issue at hand. When responding to the question of whether or not you revealed your own sins publicly, THIS is your first sentence (quoted above)? That's like when we're debating Baptism of Desire, Sean Johnson starts out with deriding me about "Flat Earth".
They are defiling the source in two ways:
1.- By adscribing to a non-saintly source (the dimonds) the brilliant writing of a pure heart (St. Alphonsus). In the extreme end of the spectrum this would be as if a publicly immoral person stole the brilliant moral writings of another, making people to think that such immoral person is CAPABLE of such pure-hearted writings. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh"
This MISREPRESENTATION has disastrous consequences on souls (as you ladislaus, are also ensared by such deception) because it skews and distorts the PROPER AND JUST perception of the charachter of the Dimonds, and gives most people the impression that their brain is brilliant when is not (is St. Alphonsus, alongside others) and that their heart is more pure and pious than it is (is St. Alphonsus Heart, alongside others).
If a wretched poet that has a cult attributed to himself the venerable poetry of St. John of the Cross, in order to being deem like him, would you agree? I hope not.
2.- By HIDING the good works of a saint. (again, read the room, nor me, nor many others knew for a fact that St. Alphonsus writing was word-for-word being copied.) Strangely, HIDING THE GOOD OF SOMEONE IS ALSO PART OF THE SIN OF DETRACTION.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3073.htm
Reply to Objection 3. A man is said to backbite [detrehere] another, not because he detracts from the truth, but because he lessens his good name. This is done sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Directly, in four ways: first, by saying that which is false about him; secondly, by stating his sin to be greater than it is; thirdly, by revealing something unknown about him; fourthly, by ascribing his good deeds to a bad intention.
*********Indirectly, this is done either by gainsaying his good, or by maliciously concealing it, or by diminishing it.*****
They are DETRACTING From St. Alphonsus' duly earned glory. It is insane that you are defending this obvious point so much. Literally never encountered such position from anybody EVEN THE DIMONDS better hide the topic altogether and never defended at all.
-
Ridiculous. This might make them "bad Benedictines" at best, but doesn't make them non-Benedictines. That's just nonsense and more of your petty vendetta. So what? They post links to various news and current affairs articles.
Excessive prudishness is generally a consequence of many years of immersion in impurity, and your language of "a male intimate part" shows this.
Can you imagine any Monastery posting this during Pope Pius XII's time?
They are not benedictines since they DO NOT follow the rule at all. Why keep defending things that you don't know, on the face of people who did knew? (me, Eric Hoyle, etc)
I think I can safely say that to decry the immoral nonsense the dimonds post publicly is not excessive prudishness. But I guess I thought you were more conservative. Suddenly, when the moral overton window is faced with enlargement to defend your heroes (heroes that reject you, to top it off) you seem to put morality aside in order to defend the indefensible.
Many of the things the Dimonds post on their website were ILLEGAL during the times Popes reigned. Namely, videos of people dying on the streets, and similarly cruel content. (sensacionalist, scandalous, true-crime content was primarily fist published on low-class newspapers run by liberal editors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
-
Jorge, have you repented of your "negligent homicide" through your promotion of the COVID hoax, as a result of which many rushed out to get the jab?
I have noticed that while I reply to every of your posts. You don't seem to do the same to me. Perhaps you are not even reading all my responses to you. So here it goes the re-statement of my position.
I made clear (both in public and private) that no one should get any vaccine, not on the covid 19 vaccine, but any vaccine whatsoever, since that's what I practice myself in my own life.
Even then, understanding that you have a completely USA-centric perception of covid 19 (is fake, is a hoax, is the flu, etc) I would not be killing anyone (even if for the sake of the argument we think that I am wrong on this) since I NEVER IMPOSED IT ON CONSCIENCE on anyone to believe like I do. I never told them that if they believe the opposite that they would be going to hell, etc
I don't even believe the Dimonds would had gone to hell over this if their research had been done poorly or wrongly (which it was) but because they IMPOSE IT in conscience, doing tremendous violence to the internal forum of people.
So, what happened with me (both public and privately) is that if they asked me my position on covid 19, I would tell them, if they show an opposite position we might talk about it, and that's that. Most people got whatever position they got from the elites they followed.
Most people I talked already believed one way or another, so my position matched theirs already, or was already the opposite and we could still be in speaking terms. A prominent example is the person who was dimondite and contacted me from europe in 2020, we became friends but he didn't agreed with my position on covid 19, and you know what? that is fine. I don't think he was evil for doing so, because, again, is a scientific debate.
The dimonds though, with their cruel violence to the internal forum, their cruel tyrannical pushing of one-version-only on religious grounds, are monsters. And yes, murderous in the category of attempt.
-
You're right that the screenshot does not appear to be from the Youtube channel. On the other hand, Jorge has yet to make a direct denial of the claim. He's spoken of his 2017 website (irrelevant), posted walls of material about MHFM being a cult, attacked the Dimonds for defiling St. Alphonsus' glory, but has not yet directly answer the question:
Jorge, recalling that lying is a sin, and would in this case also be grave calumny given the gravity of the accusation against the Dimond Brothers, did you or did you not post something in 2014 on your Youtube channel about your past sins?
It is confirmed now that you are not reading my responses in full or with attention.
I already replied DIRECTLY to this.
You published this on september 1, 2023 at 06:59:25 AM
I replied on 31st of AUGUST, 2023 at 15:51 the following:
"2.- On the youtube channel I published more than one thousand pro-dimondite videos and didn't even got into personal ideas about me, other people or anyone for that matter, if I even attacked anyone it was public figure of politics or entertainment, so no disclosement of any sort happened there."
And...... yes, that response (direct response) to your concern, was even on the batch of items I mentioned and that you complain about, (the reponse in which I talk about my website), it seems as if you saw I was talking about a topic that didn't interested you and you stop reading.
The only reason I was going into detail so much about my website is that your original claim is that I posted it on my website. Which is a false claim that you most probable made up. You said:
"Jorge himself publicly revealed his struggles with impurity and pornography on his own site ... in 2014, long before MHFM did." - Ladislaus on April 16, 2022
Your factually incorrect statement was unopposed for a year. When are you going to apologize for spreading misinformation just because you didn't watch the video of my enemy with attention?
-
Can you imagine any Monastery posting this during Pope Pius XII's time?
They are not benedictines since they DO NOT follow the rule at all. Why keep defending things that you don't know, on the face of people who did knew? (me, Eric Hoyle, etc)
I think I can safely say that to decry the immoral nonsense the dimonds post publicly is not excessive prudishness. But I guess I thought you were more conservative. Suddenly, when the moral overton window is faced with enlargement to defend your heroes (heroes that reject you, to top it off) you seem to put morality aside in order to defend the indefensible.
Many of the things the Dimonds post on their website were ILLEGAL during the times Popes reigned. Namely, videos of people dying on the streets, and similarly cruel content. (sensacionalist, scandalous, true-crime content was primarily fist published on low-class newspapers run by liberal editors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Just highlight how liberal, un-pious and wretched the news section of the dimondite website is, here is an image referred on the article of wikipedia about yellow journalism:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Puck112188c.jpg)
It is titled "The Evil Spirits of the Modern Daily Press" and prominently features "Criminal news" as one of the devils unleashed by the printing press of its time.
Isn't it something when a layman from the XIX century was less liberal than Sarabaite Michael (at least on that issue)?
It really is something when we are in a traditionally inclined forum, arguing if a Monastery posting criminal news is okay or not. When the obvious response should be that it is not becoming of religious to be this liberal, this scandalous and this worldly.
-
The Council of Florence was BEFORE the bull cuм ex. So the causality of what docuмent abrogated what doesn't even make sense.
The idea that the Bull's doctrinal content cannot be abrogated (since is doctrinal) is a standard position of sedevacantists (CMRI people, me, etc) so when you phrased it as "Fred and Bob say...." sounds out-of-context-y.
The point I am trying to get across is that the brothers preach cuм ex as though it is still in force - if they actually believed cuм ex is still in force, then they would necessarily have to believe they are not "Brothers" at all - that's the point.
Can you quote specifically the Bull's doctrinal content that sedes use in support of their position? I attached a pdf of cuм ex.
-
So, just to clarify. It is your position that the Bull cuм ex apostolatus officio effectively excommunicates all the people who hold any error, and that such excommunication is only per the bull, but when the bull is abrogated all is good for the same people?
I mentioned several examples of errors hold (sometimes for centuries) by many people, like errors in the canon. Is it your position that the Bull would had applied to them? I just want to make sure if that is your position.
cuм ex officially excommunicates anysoever (anyone and everyone) who deviates from the faith. You said you read cuм ex many times - what the heck did you read?
cuм ex states it plainly....
We have been
concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly
ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation
countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We
have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken
of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty,
insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in
the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to
be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be
compared with the hireling.
2 Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the
Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we
now enact as follows:-
In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any
other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in
any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be
such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the
Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the
Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and
renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively
observance, that they be restored to it.
Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred
without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith,
or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who
have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of
these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the
future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
-
Sorry, Jorge, but can't take your side here. Not that MHFM is always right, but, to put it colloquially, you're just as bad as they are. You clearly have a deep animosity against them fueling a vendetta, where you try to find and make any petty accusation you can, exaggerating using St. Alphonsus without attribution as "defiling [his] glory", attacking them for posting links to secular events on their website, etc. It's become clear that you simply despise them and are motivated by this hatred / contempt. Don't you find it unpleasant to make the entire reason for your being to attack the Dimond Brothers, such as when you vowed that you would spend the rest of your life posting videos attacking them?
It's like watching two ill-tempered children fighting and squabbling and being told you have to pick a side when they're both at fault.
Find a purpose in life doing something constructive and positive rather than defining yourself as Anti-Dimond. You'll find that there might be a much greater chance of peace and for sanctifying your soul. You'd be better off just staying offline. Just kick the dust off your feet and move along. Dimond Brothers have plenty of other adversaries and enemies, and those who aren't one of their "cult members" generally despise them almost as much as you do. So there's no need for one other individual who's practically possessed by the desire to get back at them.
If I were your spiritual director, I would order you to never mention the Dimond Brothers again (especially online) and to just focus on your own soul. As the Dimonds pointed out, just a couple months after your conversion, you were already setting up some online apostolate where you should have been learning and trying to sanctify yourself. Your mistake was in entering the public arena, which can be ruthless and unforgiving.
-
The point I am trying to get across is that the brothers preach cuм ex as though it is still in force - if they actually believed cuм ex is still in force, then they would necessarily have to believe they are not "Brothers" at all - that's the point.
Can you quote specifically the Bull's doctrinal content that sedes use in support of their position? I attached a pdf of cuм ex.
I, Jorge, me, myself, my person. Also holds that the doctrinal content of the bull is still in force. Simply because catholic doctrine is the correct doctrine, and correct doctrine being made explicit by any Pope is, as the encyclicals say "For everlasting memory"
The doctrinal content of the Bull is that a heretic cannot be a Pope, or a bishop, or an abbot, etc, etc
That doctrinal content cannot be abrogated, simply because is true.
Is not as if councils or bulls or encyclicals have different headers saying "this part is doctrinal - do not touch" is just that the legal and disciplinary decrees were closely intertwined and sometimes fused into the same sentence.
And again, even a heretic can be a monk, as per the Council of Florence. So, yes, the dimonds are monks, sarabaite monks. But it is in honor of the truth that their level of wickedness should be properly framed in the context of their wicked monasticism, entirely corrupted by their pride.
-
cuм ex officially excommunicates anysoever (anyone and everyone) who deviates from the faith. You said you read cuм ex many times - what the heck did you read?
cuм ex states it plainly....
We have been
concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly
ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation
countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We
have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken
of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty,
insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in
the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to
be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be
compared with the hireling.
2 Hence, concerning these matters, We have held mature deliberation with our venerable brothers the
Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church; and, upon their advice and with their unanimous agreement, we
now enact as follows:-
In respect of each and every sentence of excommunication, suspension, interdict and privation and any
other sentences, censures and penalties against heretics or schismatics, enforced and promulgated in
any way whatsoever by any of Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs, or by any who were held to be
such (even by their "litterae extravagantes" i.e. private letters), or by the sacred Councils received by the
Church of God, or by decrees of the Holy Fathers and the statutes, or by the sacred Canons and the
Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations - all these measures, by Apostolic authority, We approve and
renew, that they may and must be observed in perpetuity and, if perchance they be no longer in lively
observance, that they be restored to it.
Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred
without exception by all members of the following categories:
(i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith,
or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who
have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of
these things.
(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the
future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
Deviates from the faith = a heretic
Heretic = someone who obstinately adheres to heresies (this is also confirmed as the official definition by the 1917 canon law)
If we go by the strictness version of it. THEN, Richard Ibranyi is correct, and there has been no Popes for centuries, which is not true and I don't even think that's your position.
Again, some errors that were hold by thousands for centuries did occured and are a matter of historical record. Like ensoulment, jurisdiction of the emperor over the Pope, denying the canon of scriptures even after St. Damaso, the error of denying the immaculate conception (an entire philosophical school of thought opposed to Duns Scoto), and on and on.
-
I, Jorge, me, myself, my person. Also holds that the doctrinal content of the bull is still in force. Simply because catholic doctrine is the correct doctrine, and correct doctrine being made explicit by any Pope is, as the encyclicals say "For everlasting memory"
The doctrinal content of the Bull is that a heretic cannot be a Pope, or a bishop, or an abbot, etc, etc
That doctrinal content cannot be abrogated, simply because is true.
Is not as if councils or bulls or encyclicals have different headers saying "this part is doctrinal - do not touch" is just that the legal and disciplinary decrees were closely intertwined and sometimes fused into the same sentence.
And again, even a heretic can be a monk, as per the Council of Florence. So, yes, the dimonds are monks, sarabaite monks. But it is in honor of the truth that their level of wickedness should be properly framed in the context of their wicked monasticism, entirely corrupted by their pride.
Ok, well, cuм ex disagrees with you. I posted what it says but you do not accept it.
I asked for you to quote specifically the Bull's doctrinal content that sedes use in support of their position. Instead, you give it a sede doctrine in your own words. Sorry jorgec but you're a mess. cuм ex does not say anything of the sort. cuм ex is quite clear. No, the brothers are not monks, they are frauds who've convinced you and many others that they are.
-
Sorry, Jorge, but can't take your side here. Not that MHFM is always right, but, to put it colloquially, you're just as bad as they are. You clearly have a deep animosity against them fueling a vendetta, where you try to find and make any petty accusation you can, exaggerating using St. Alphonsus without attribution as "defiling [his] glory", attacking them for posting links to secular events on their website, etc. It's become clear that you simply despise them and are motivated by this hatred / contempt. Don't you find it unpleasant to make the entire reason for your being to attack the Dimond Brothers, such as when you vowed that you would spend the rest of your life posting videos attacking them?
It's like watching two ill-tempered children fighting and squabbling and being told you have to pick a side when they're both at fault.
Find a purpose in life doing something constructive and positive rather than defining yourself as Anti-Dimond. You'll find that there might be a much greater chance of peace and for sanctifying your soul. You'd be better off just staying offline. Just kick the dust off your feet and move along. Dimond Brothers have plenty of other adversaries and enemies, and those who aren't one of their "cult members" generally despise them almost as much as you do. So there's no need for one other individual who's practically possessed by the desire to get back at them.
If I were your spiritual director, I would order you to never mention the Dimond Brothers again (especially online) and to just focus on your own soul. As the Dimonds pointed out, just a couple months after your conversion, you were already setting up some online apostolate where you should have been learning and trying to sanctify yourself. Your mistake was in entering the public arena, which can be ruthless and unforgiving.
1.- My desire is not primarily for people to take my side, on one part, because that's impossible (not even any within the trad inc space has such a universal approval) and as such, I cannot desire something is impossible in a way that would be productive.
I do desire (and I am obtaining) to spread the truth about the Dimondite cult. So in that I am succeding.
2.- I publicly call on you to acknowledge that you committed an error by saying that I posted my sins in 2014. After educating you in detail in dimondite lore in that area, you seem to be attempting to use this "response" as your sign off letter. With a conclusion as if you are the judge in a dispute between me and the dimonds. Respectfully, who put you in that place? The Dimonds already told you you are on the road to hell, and I also don't accept you as a superior moral source, specially after defending insane ideas surrounding stealing writings from saints.
3.- I do despise the Dimonds, just like I despise pedo *hiles and murderers and similar extreme cases of obstinate sinners. No need for you to apparent shock at what is publicly readily my position. It just looks shocking to you (in your head) because you already concluded (in a very incoherent way) that they dimonds are morally good and great defenders of the Catholic faith. But that positive strawman you have made of them just simply doesn't exist.
4.- You are rashly assuming I have made my whole purpose in life to be anti-dimondite. Which is (again) factually incorrect. Do you know me? (no) have you meet me in person? (no) do you know my family? (no) have you even attempted at inteviewing anyone who knows me? (no) have you seen my schedule during any lenght of time? (no), so, with what knowledge you come to that conclusion? well, with almost nothing, is just that in your subjective and ignorantly informed estimation, dedicating the time I had dedicated to tell the truth is already excessive. Perhaps because you deem it just that almost only you could justly and moderately talk about the dimonds, or that your positions on them were the only ones in reference to them, but what do I tell you, welcome to reality. This is what God in his mercy and goodness is allowing in reference to them. They are a factory that produces their own worst enemies, why? because they are ruthless idiots.
I did say that I pledge my life to attack them, so far it is still going. :) I hope that God can give me the streght to AT LEAST attack them for 8 years straight, for at least repairing my time as a dimondite. But again, pledging your life to attack a horrible cult only sounds shockings to those who might like the cult, like saying I pledge my life to attack the cult of charles manson, who would find that shocking or objectionable? only those who harbor sympathies for such cult.
5.- If I were your spiritual director.... But you aren't :), thanks be to God. Are you even a priest? I would venture a shot in the dark and say that you most likely are not a priest. (since you have never mentioned it to my knowledge) so this is just you publicly desiring something that God has you far away from even coming close to fulfill on anybody, namely, being a superior of anybody.
And talking about superiors and me having a youtube channel. Yes, the position of the dimondite cult (that you saw and agree with in the video of william) is that I shouldn't have done such dimondite-apostolate. But AT THE TIME, they didn't mind it and many times, (again) EXPLICITLY GREENLIGHTED me getting donations in public.
So, yeah, everything is fine when the Dimonds are getting traffic from a random mexican, but after this person attacks us, let's just say this person was crazy from even doing such channel to begin with.
Perhaps since you are not deep into dimondite lore you don't know this, so allow me, the Dimonds believe and have said that preaching the dimondite-ideas GRANTS YOU GRACES, and that if people DO NOT PREACH they will go to hell (Cfr. dimonds video titled Do you evangelize?) so, me being a big pro-dimondite producer of videos was also in part my effort to change the errors of my ways, and to be occupied in good things instead of anything else.
I still agree though that sharing the truth grants graces, I just realized the dimonds are false prophets and to promote them just brings down the condemnation and displeasure of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So I am on my way to repair that, with anti-dimondite-truth-telling.
Anywho, I wait for your public recanting of the factually incorrect information you say about me revealing my sins in 2014. Are you even honorable enough to grant the truth such respite?
-
Ok, well, cuм ex disagrees with you. I posted what it says but you do not accept it.
I asked for you to quote specifically the Bull's doctrinal content that sedes use in support of their position. Instead, you give it a sede doctrine in your own words. Sorry jorgec but you're a mess. cuм ex does not say anything of the sort. cuм ex is quite clear. No, the brothers are not monks, they are frauds who've convinced you and many others that they are.
They are Sarabaite monks (just like many sarabaites before them) who are not catholic (they are schismatical false prophets) and have no jurisdiction over any Catholic (since they themselves are not catholic and didn't receive any mandate from any Bishop or Pope).
But just like heretical eastern schismatic monks (who had no jurisdiction) were still monks. The choice of occupation and the power attach to it are different matters.
The Bull is a venerable docuмent that states correct catholic doctrine on heretics losing office, confirmed by Pope St. Pius the V and its doctrine by the code of canon law of 1917. It is a great providencial mercy that we have such docuмents to safely reject the heretical antipopes.
It is my clear understanding that it is not your position, so, we are at an impasse. I will just continue on my side, teaching my children the truth and trying to spread it.
Take care.
-
Deviates from the faith = a heretic
Heretic = someone who obstinately adheres to heresies (this is also confirmed as the official definition by the 1917 canon law)
If we go by the strictness version of it. THEN, Richard Ibranyi is correct, and there has been no Popes for centuries, which is not true and I don't even think that's your position.
Again, some errors that were hold by thousands for centuries did occured and are a matter of historical record. Like ensoulment, jurisdiction of the emperor over the Pope, denying the canon of scriptures even after St. Damaso, the error of denying the immaculate conception (an entire philosophical school of thought opposed to Duns Scoto), and on and on.
An example of "deviates from the faith" would be sedeism. Not so much in the belief that the chair is vacant, although that is one thing, but more so in regards to all the other things that necessarily goes along with that belief.
Heresy is a sin, a mortal sin. Heresy is a sin against the 1st commandment. Heresy and schism and apostacy are the worst or gravest of all the sins. To be absolved for that sin the heretic must go to confession.
As exemplified in cuм ex, he distinguishes the two as being different because "Deviates from the faith" does not = a heretic.
To give only one example of "deviate from the faith:"
One of the "deviations from the faith" sedes hold, is the belief that a Catholic who has become a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. But Catholics, including popes, who've fallen into the sin of heresy and want to repent, can be absolved through the sacrament of penance. Certainly you understand that the Church only permits the use of this sacrament to those who are members of the Church. Hence, Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy are members of the Church by virtue of their ability to use this sacrament. So much for heretics not being members of the Church.
-
An example of "deviates from the faith" would be sedeism. Not so much in the belief that the chair is vacant, although that is one thing, but more so in regards to all the other things that necessarily goes along with that belief.
Heresy is a sin, a mortal sin. Heresy is a sin against the 1st commandment. Heresy and schism and apostacy are the worst or gravest of all the sins. To be absolved for that sin the heretic must go to confession.
As exemplified in cuм ex, he distinguishes the two as being different because "Deviates from the faith" does not = a heretic.
To give only one example of "deviate from the faith:"
One of the "deviations from the faith" sedes hold, is the belief that a Catholic who has become a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. But Catholics, including popes, who've fallen into the sin of heresy and want to repent, can be absolved through the sacrament of penance. Certainly you understand that the Church only permits the use of this sacrament to those who are members of the Church. Hence, Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy are members of the Church by virtue of their ability to use this sacrament. So much for heretics not being members of the Church.
Obstinate heretics can use the sacrament of confession after a public abjuration, which means, that at that point they are not heretics anylonger.
Material heretics could be in error, and use the sacrament of confession with fruit even if they are not aware of their errors, so, yes, some type of people who are in error materially could do a valid confession.
Obstinate heretics cannot be Popes. That is also affirmed by the 1917 code of canon law.
-
Obstinate heretics can use the sacrament of confession after a public abjuration, which means, that at that point they are not heretics anylonger.
Material heretics could be in error, and use the sacrament of confession with fruit even if they are not aware of their errors, so, yes, some type of people who are in error materially could do a valid confession.
Obstinate heretics cannot be Popes. That is also affirmed by the 1917 code of canon law.
Sorry but you are wrong again. It's canon law (I can't remember which one) that the only time a public abjuration is required is if/when the bishop makes it a requirement, otherwise, the norm is that no public abjuration is required. One reason for this is because the excommunication is already lifted in all traditional confessions, then the sins are absolved.
If I know this, it seems like after all those years you spent with "the bruthas" that you should also know this, even be well versed in it. Instead you likely had no idea, perhaps they kept this from you while indoctrinating you in error.
You should know that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal.....
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...
In the traditional formula, the words of absolution of the priest:
"May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."
This ^^ is from Who Shall Ascend?, a great book written by Fr. Wathen - whom the Dimonds were very friendly with, until they went sede that is. Once that happened they turned on him like rabid dogs, they slandered this good priest like they do all others who are in disagreement with them.
I'm wondering if any of this makes any sense at all to you.
-
I would say that the two books The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) and Who Shall Ascend? (pdf attached) cover most of the forum's hot topics that are repeatedly discussed. These two books were written as a direct result of this crisis and answers many question. Whether or not you believe the answers is another thing, but in time and perhaps with the grace of God you will find answers to many questions you probably have, written in these books.
Thanks for the books. But I would like to say, didn't Fr Wathen hold a strange position that those who were heretics etc where still members of the Church? Though the Church teaches such people are cur off from the Church?
-
Sorry but you are wrong again. It's canon law (I can't remember which one) that the only time a public abjuration is required is if/when the bishop makes it a requirement, otherwise, the norm is that no public abjuration is required. One reason for this is because the excommunication is already lifted in all traditional confessions, then the sins are absolved.
If I know this, it seems like after all those years you spent with "the bruthas" that you should also know this, even be well versed in it. Instead you likely had no idea, perhaps they kept this from you while indoctrinating you in error.
You should know that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal.....
One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven. The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin...
In the traditional formula, the words of absolution of the priest:
"May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..."
This ^^ is from Who Shall Ascend?, a great book written by Fr. Wathen - whom the Dimonds were very friendly with, until they went sede that is. Once that happened they turned on him like rabid dogs, they slandered this good priest like they do all others who are in disagreement with them.
I'm wondering if any of this makes any sense at all to you.
There is different levels on censures. It is possible to be excommunicated for, say, disobedience to the ordinary, and be realesed from that censure by confessing your sin to the Bishop.
Usually the way this excommunications are laid out in the way in which they affect communion are mentioned in canon law. And in that sense, some excommunicated people can remain Catholic (if the excommunication only means that he cannot take sacraments).
For instance, if a person is not married and living with a partner, he cannot partake from the sacraments, so therefore, in technical and literal sense, he is excommunicated (or outside of being able to receive communion) but it is also possible that such person can be a Catholic.
Now, whenever a big bull of excommunication is issued (let's say, against the Queen of England) this is more serious type of excommunication that usually requires explicit and public abjuration, but this types of excommunications were mainly only issued at leaders of sects, heresiarcs, and the like.
So, I do see what you are writing and we do agree on the parts that are maintained by Traditional Catholic practice. But I of course don't conclude what you conclude. For instance, I don't regard Bergoglio as valid Pope. But, as an antipope.
-
I would say that the two books The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/) and Who Shall Ascend? (pdf attached) cover most of the forum's hot topics that are repeatedly discussed. These two books were written as a direct result of this crisis and answers many question. Whether or not you believe the answers is another thing, but in time and perhaps with the grace of God you will find answers to many questions you probably have, written in these books.
I hadn't realized that Matthew posted a PDF of Fr. Wathen's "The Great Sacrilege."
In reading just a little of it so far, I find a paragraph on the bottom of page 13 and into page 14 that seems important regarding the papacy. It states thus:
"....No more does the great holiness and shining orthodoxy or faultless rule of one pontiff assure any Catholic of his salvation than does the wickedness of another pope cause anyone's perdition. The papacy is not a sacrament! Nor is the personal faith of any one pope the touchstone of Orthodoxy; rather, it is the solemnly defined doctrines of the Church and all those teachings and norms which flow logically from them. It is the traditional Faith of Catholicism we must adhere to -- the Faith of the saints -- no matter what happens during any given period of the Church's history."
-
Thanks for the books. But I would like to say, didn't Fr Wathen hold a strange position that those who were heretics etc where still members of the Church? Though the Church teaches such people are cur off from the Church?
Read the post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg901569/#msg901569) just above your post.
-
Read the post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg901569/#msg901569) just above your post.
Wouldn't a person who is excommunicated or in schism return to the Church before receiving the sacrament, as they would already have been given grace from God and repented internally?
But one is who is obstinate cannot receive the sacrament. Or rather... How do Sacraments work for those who pretend to be Catholics or those who baptisms aren't valid? I recall one Saint who was brought back to life to be baptized because as it turned out she had never been baptized (an angel told her to turn back when she died.).
-
There is different levels on censures. It is possible to be excommunicated for, say, disobedience to the ordinary, and be realesed from that censure by confessing your sin to the Bishop.
Usually the way this excommunications are laid out in the way in which they affect communion are mentioned in canon law. And in that sense, some excommunicated people can remain Catholic (if the excommunication only means that he cannot take sacraments).
For instance, if a person is not married and living with a partner, he cannot partake from the sacraments, so therefore, in technical and literal sense, he is excommunicated (or outside of being able to receive communion) but it is also possible that such person can be a Catholic.
Now, whenever a big bull of excommunication is issued (let's say, against the Queen of England) this is more serious type of excommunication that usually requires explicit and public abjuration, but this types of excommunications were mainly only issued at leaders of sects, heresiarcs, and the like.
So, I do see what you are writing and we do agree on the parts that are maintained by Traditional Catholic practice. But I of course don't conclude what you conclude. For instance, I don't regard Bergoglio as valid Pope. But, as an antipope.
Yes of course, certainly there are different levels, and in your example of a Catholic who is not married and living with a partner, the reason he is excommunicated and cannot partake of the sacraments is because he is living in mortal sin.
The same is true for Catholics guilty of the mortal sin(s) of heresy, schism, and apostacy, as well as murder, adultery, lying, blaspheming, stealing and so on - all are guilty mortal sin, all these mortal sins, to whatever degree (only God knows) severs the Catholic from the Church until they confess their sins to a priest, are absolved and are no longer severed at all. This is the way that a Catholic reunites himself with the Church - the abjuration is only necessary if and when the bishop or priest or pope makes it necessary, either by making the abjuration a part of the official censure, or by requiring it before confession.
The sedes have an altogether different idea of the reason for excommunication, what it is and what it means.
What excommunication is, is primarily medicinal in nature (St. Thomas Aquinas) and does not even mean expulsion from the Church. It means that the Catholic who is under censure is in the state of mortal sin and must go to confession (which only members of the Church are permitted to do) to have the censure lifted and the mortal sin absolved.
Because the mortal sin is public, the censure means that the excommunicant is not permitted to take part in the communal life of the Church, i.e. cannot receive communion, or sing in the choir, play the organ, be an usher and so on - until he confesses his sin and is absolved from it. In a nutshell, the Church does not want, or forbids an apostate or an adulterer communicating their error to other members.
One thing that is certain, is the idea of the Church kicking out a sinner, any sinner, is altogether contrary to the Church's mission and purpose. St. Thomas says the primary purpose of excommunication is medicinal, whereas the sedes' idea of excommunication is primarily punishment and banishment from the Church. This idea is altogether wrong.
-
Thanks for the books. But I would like to say, didn't Fr Wathen hold a strange position that those who were heretics etc where still members of the Church? Though the Church teaches such people are cur off from the Church?
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-james-wathen-who-shall-ascend/
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-wathen-part-2/
The once Catholic always Catholic heresy is one of the dumbest heresies I've ever heard.
-
Wouldn't a person Catholic who is excommunicated or in schism return to the Church before receiving the sacrament, as they would already have been given grace from God and repented internally?
But one is who is obstinate cannot receive the sacrament. Or rather... How do Sacraments work for those who pretend to be Catholics or those who baptisms aren't valid? I recall one Saint who was brought back to life to be baptized because as it turned out she had never been baptized (an angel told her to turn back when she died.).
Well, for the sake of clarity, I think it necessary to first differentiate between "a person" and "a Catholic," as I did in your above quote. A flaming heretic who was never a Catholic to begin with, is in a completely different and more dire situation than a Catholic who preaches flaming heresy. While both are guilty of the mortal sin of heresy, only the penitent Catholic can, and the Church urges them, to simply walk into the confessional same as all other members of the Church and confess their sin to the priest to be forgiven.
Yes, the obstinate sinner cannot receive the sacraments and all who receive unworthily commit the additional sin of sacrilege. For those invalidly baptized I do not concern myself with, I am happy to let God sort that out. Were I to know of such a person, then I would do everything I could to correct the situation, which would amount to getting that person to a priest to be conditionally baptized and receive the other sacraments of communion and confirmation.
-
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-james-wathen-who-shall-ascend/
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-wathen-part-2/
The once Catholic always Catholic heresy is one of the dumbest heresies I've ever heard.
Ah, I was wondering when these links would show themselves. This was what I was referring to when I said above:
"This ^^ is from Who Shall Ascend?, a great book written by Fr. Wathen - whom the Dimonds were very friendly with, until they went sede that is. Once that happened they turned on him like rabid dogs, they slandered this good priest like they do all others who are in disagreement with them."
If you take the time to compare, you will find Fr. Wathen is purposely misquoted more than once by the bruthas, nothing new there.
Yes, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is necessarily extremely dumb - to sedes.
-
Thanks for the books. But I would like to say, didn't Fr Wathen hold a strange position that those who were heretics etc where still members of the Church? Though the Church teaches such people are cur off from the Church?
To supplement what others have written above, "Once-a-Catholic, always-a-Catholic" does NOT imply some airy-fairy hyper tolerant NuChurch open door policy, no questions asked.
What it does mean is that the Church will forever retain jurisdiction over those who are baptized Catholics, thus the power to excommunicate as well as the power to absolve and to return the excommunicated to a state of communion. If instead excommunication were by definition a permanent state till death, then the Church would, in effect, cede authority over those of its members. Then instead of the Sacrament of Penance, return to communion would have to entail re-Baptism, and we know that's impossible (aside from the rare conditional Baptism in doubtful cases, a whole other topic).
This is the reason that priests require that parents who seek Baptism for their newborn demonstrate fealty themselves to the Faith and a commitment to raise the child according to the precepts of the Church. If, however, a baptized child is raised in a manner that, upon reaching the age of reason, that young Catholic is liable to live as an apostate, then there's a soul at far greater risk than had the child not been baptized to begin with.
-
Since it seems people are too lazy to click the link here's some quotes from it.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441: "Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
Here we see again, directly contrary to the teaching of Fr. Wathen, that heresy does sever a man from the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic."
Anyone who holds that you can't sever yourself from the Church after reading this is in a mind-boggling diabolical fog.
-
Since it seems people are too lazy to click the link here's some quotes from it.
Thank you for providing the quotes.
Those links don't work so I tried searching directly. It seems that instead, the functioning website is v a t i c a n c a t h o l i c . c o m, which, when pasted here whether as a URL or as plain text, somehow insists on transforming itself to schismatic-home-aloner.com, voila again below. (That's why I had to add the spaces above.) Odd if the source wants readers to be able to share it with others, no?
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-james-wathen-who-shall-ascend/
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-james-wathen-who-shall-ascend/)https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-wathen-part-2/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-wathen-part-2/)
-
Odd if the source wants readers to be able to share it with others, no?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/salza-calls-sspx-and-sedes-schismatics/msg866306/#msg866306
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/salza-calls-sspx-and-sedes-schismatics/msg866306/#msg866306
OK, thanks for that clarification.
-
To supplement what others have written above, "Once-a-Catholic, always-a-Catholic" does NOT imply some airy-fairy hyper tolerant NuChurch open door policy, no questions asked.
What it does mean is that the Church will forever retain jurisdiction over those who are baptized Catholics, thus the power to excommunicate as well as the power to absolve and to return the excommunicated to a state of communion. If instead excommunication were by definition a permanent state till death, then the Church would, in effect, cede authority over those of its members. Then instead of the Sacrament of Penance, return to communion would have to entail re-Baptism, and we know that's impossible (aside from the rare conditional Baptism in doubtful cases, a whole other topic).
This is the reason that priests require that parents who seek Baptism for their newborn demonstrate fealty themselves to the Faith and a commitment to raise the child according to the precepts of the Church. If, however, a baptized child is raised in a manner that, upon reaching the age of reason, that young Catholic is liable to live as an apostate, then there's a soul at far greater risk than had the child not been baptized to begin with.
Only the sedes have a major problem with this truth of the Catholic faith, nobody else does because to accept this Catholic truth pokes a giant hole thru their belief in sedeism, a belief which they guard with a vigilance great enough so that they ignore or reject everything and anything that threatens that belief.
It is apparent that they do not realize that to them, their belief means: "If we must argue away all the other doctrines of the Faith, and deny the reality of the very cosmos, we will hold to this one belief." This is exactly what they do, but only for those doctrines of faith that could, would, might, or have even the slightest possibly of threatening that belief in any way.
-
Only the sedes have a major problem with this truth of the Catholic faith, nobody else does because to accept this Catholic truth pokes a giant hole thru their belief in sedeism, a belief which they guard with a vigilance great enough so that they ignore or reject everything and anything that threatens that belief.
It is apparent that they do not realize that to them, their belief means: "If we must argue away all the other doctrines of the Faith, and deny the reality of the very cosmos, we will hold to this one belief." This is exactly what they do, but only for those doctrines of faith that could, would, might, or have even the slightest possibly of threatening that belief in any way.
This seems strange to me. It's similar to those who say people outside the Church are part of the "soul of the church" inorder to justify invincible ignorance, i.e making exceptions for EENS.
-
This seems strange to me. It's similar to those who say people outside the Church are part of the "soul of the church" inorder to justify invincible ignorance, i.e making exceptions for EENS.
It is strange in one sense, but it is because heresy, schism and apostacy are mortal sins, any and every Catholic guilty of those sins can and must (and the Church urges them) to go to confession to get them absolved. The sedes give those sins a different meaning so as to make those guilty of them to be altogether unforgivable, iow something more than mortal sins, which is one reason why they have a completely different understanding, and, like the Bruthas do, convince others to believe their misunderstanding as being true.
Those outside of the Church do not have this sacrament available to them, every Catholic knows this. This divine luxury is afforded only to members of the Catholic Church.
It truly is as Digital Logos said in his last post, [sedeism] "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
-
It is strange in one sense, but it is because heresy, schism and apostacy are mortal sins, any and every Catholic guilty of those sins can and must (and the Church urges them) to go to confession to get them absolved. The sedes give those sins a different meaning so as to make those guilty of them to be altogether unforgivable, iow something more than mortal sins, which is one reason why they have a completely different understanding, and, like the Bruthas do, convince others to believe their misunderstanding as being true.
Those outside of the Church do not have this sacrament available to them, every Catholic knows this. This divine luxury is afforded only to members of the Catholic Church.
It truly is as Digital Logos said in his last post, [sedeism] "entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
Bold part is not right. They can be forgiven.
How do you understand this quote?
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
From what I understand. Mortal sin is a dead body part, like frost bite. Heresy, schism and apostasy, those dead body parts are automatically cut off.
Now, God is quite easily capable of revitalising those dead body parts and easily grafting them back on, provided they repent.
-
Bold part is not right. They can be forgiven.
How do you understand this quote?
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
From what I understand. Mortal sin is a dead body part, like frost bite. Heresy, schism and apostasy, those dead body parts are automatically cut off.
Now, God is quite easily capable of revitalising those dead body parts and easily grafting them back on, provided they repent.
First, note he starts out saying: "not every offense..." he does not say: "no other offense..." He is talking about the *nature* of sins, here he is speaking particularly about the *nature* of the sins of "schism, heresy or apostacy."
Those are the worst sins because they are sins directly against our holy faith itself.
1) One who sins against the faith itself has only disdain for the faith,
2) One who has only disdain for the faith, means that repenting and returning to that faith (the thing they disdain) is the last thing they would ever want to do. This describes the *nature* of those sins.
Think of something you disdain, would you want to embrace it, or would you want to run from it? The *nature* of those sins makes one want to run from it, THAT is the *nature* of those sins, that is why they are the worst sins. That quote must be understood in context with the faith itself, otherwise the sedes end up "presenting a doctrine contrary to it..." . As Fr. Wathen put it:
"...All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.
Therefore, anyone who in any way teaches contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness and of course the truth of God. And if anyone comes forth and presents a doctrine contrary to it, he necessarily rouses the ire of Almighty God because he substitutes his puny human ideas and preferences to the holiness of the Divine Revelation...""
The Bruthas and most sedes ignore the *whole* teaching, and by focusing only on those three sins severing from the Church, forever banish, expel, kick out, their membership rescinded, no longer a member, and on that account cannot be popes. Again, such thinking is altogether contrary to the Church's mission and purpose, and rips a hole in the "single cloth".
-
Yes of course, certainly there are different levels, and in your example of a Catholic who is not married and living with a partner, the reason he is excommunicated and cannot partake of the sacraments is because he is living in mortal sin.
The same is true for Catholics guilty of the mortal sin(s) of heresy, schism, and apostacy, as well as murder, adultery, lying, blaspheming, stealing and so on - all are guilty mortal sin, all these mortal sins, to whatever degree (only God knows) severs the Catholic from the Church until they confess their sins to a priest, are absolved and are no longer severed at all. This is the way that a Catholic reunites himself with the Church - the abjuration is only necessary if and when the bishop or priest or pope makes it necessary, either by making the abjuration a part of the official censure, or by requiring it before confession.
The sedes have an altogether different idea of the reason for excommunication, what it is and what it means.
What excommunication is, is primarily medicinal in nature (St. Thomas Aquinas) and does not even mean expulsion from the Church. It means that the Catholic who is under censure is in the state of mortal sin and must go to confession (which only members of the Church are permitted to do) to have the censure lifted and the mortal sin absolved.
Because the mortal sin is public, the censure means that the excommunicant is not permitted to take part in the communal life of the Church, i.e. cannot receive communion, or sing in the choir, play the organ, be an usher and so on - until he confesses his sin and is absolved from it. In a nutshell, the Church does not want, or forbids an apostate or an adulterer communicating their error to other members.
One thing that is certain, is the idea of the Church kicking out a sinner, any sinner, is altogether contrary to the Church's mission and purpose. St. Thomas says the primary purpose of excommunication is medicinal, whereas the sedes' idea of excommunication is primarily punishment and banishment from the Church. This idea is altogether wrong.
Queen of England was really and truly quicked out with the excommunication Bull. Same for Luther.
But even being kicked out can be medicinal, since it can make people reflect.
And it is also of doctrine that obstinate heresy does make the person exclude themselves from the Church. So it is a mortal sin (yes) but that mortal sin (according to Canon Law) does make you exit the Church.
Just like Bergoglio exited the Church decades before being selected as antipope.
-
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-james-wathen-who-shall-ascend/
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/fr-wathen-part-2/
The once Catholic always Catholic heresy is one of the dumbest heresies I've ever heard.
I'd have to agree with the Dimondite who attacked me several times on this thread.
I have not find anyone who teach that doctrine beside Fr. Wathen, not even the SSPX who has a similar conclusion teaches it. It falls apart the more you read about ecclesiology.
-
To supplement what others have written above, "Once-a-Catholic, always-a-Catholic" does NOT imply some airy-fairy hyper tolerant NuChurch open door policy, no questions asked.
What it does mean is that the Church will forever retain jurisdiction over those who are baptized Catholics, thus the power to excommunicate as well as the power to absolve and to return the excommunicated to a state of communion. If instead excommunication were by definition a permanent state till death, then the Church would, in effect, cede authority over those of its members. Then instead of the Sacrament of Penance, return to communion would have to entail re-Baptism, and we know that's impossible (aside from the rare conditional Baptism in doubtful cases, a whole other topic).
This is the reason that priests require that parents who seek Baptism for their newborn demonstrate fealty themselves to the Faith and a commitment to raise the child according to the precepts of the Church. If, however, a baptized child is raised in a manner that, upon reaching the age of reason, that young Catholic is liable to live as an apostate, then there's a soul at far greater risk than had the child not been baptized to begin with.
This is not what Canon Law (1917 code) teaches. An obstinate heretic is not part of the Church and the Church does not judge those outside of her.
The heretics (even if baptized) are under the Jurisdiction of God alone, just like St. Paul teaches in the Bible "whom I am to judge those outside? those will be judged by the Lord"
This can also be exemplified in the fact that bulls, encyclicals, etc, adress primarily issues concerning Catholics. Instead of finding topics that were of interest to the Hindus, the USA, China or Russia.
-
This is not what Canon Law (1917 code) teaches. An obstinate heretic is not part of the Church and the Church does not judge those outside of her.
The heretics (even if baptized) are under the Jurisdiction of God alone, just like St. Paul teaches in the Bible "whom I am to judge those outside? those will be judged by the Lord"
This can also be exemplified in the fact that bulls, encyclicals, etc, adress primarily issues concerning Catholics. Instead of finding topics that were of interested to the Hindus, the USA, China or Russia.
Please cite the relevant Canon Law, since I agree with Soubirous on this. Church has authority and jurisdiction over all those who have the character of Baptism, as is taught by Trent.
-
Sorry, Jorge, but can't take your side here.....
I left this thread 2 days (weekend) to rest a bit, specially on Sunday. I hoped Ladislaus would recant his factually erroneous position (that he invented) that I revealed my sins in 2014. I told him directly to recant as readers of this thread can publicly see.
It seems that he doesn't want to recant a lie that he constructed out of carelessness (and perhaps a deep desire that such lie be the truth) and without double checking, he said such lie in public.
Such lie remained unopposed for a year, and after careful examination and refutation, he still refuses to take it back and eat his own careless words.
I will try to contact him privately, but I just want to publicly proclaim that, in a verifiable manner. I said the truth over this matter and Ladislaus, at this point, is obstinately allowing his lies (that he knows to be lies) to remain in the public record without any justifiable reparation to my person.
I thought better of you Ladislaus. I certainly over estimated you. Oh well.
-
I'd have to agree with the Dimondite who attacked me several times on this thread.
I have not find anyone who teach that doctrine beside Fr. Wathen, not even the SSPX who has a similar conclusion teaches it. It falls apart the more you read about ecclesiology.
Stubborn (poster here on CI) holds this position, and I used to criticize him for holding a position that no Catholic theologian holds or has ever held. I was mistaken. I found ONE theologian, mentioned by Msgr. Fenton, who nevertheless stands alone, claiming that the baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church. Nevertheless, it pretty much died with him and no one holds this any more. Consensus is behind St. Robert Bellarmine's definition of membership in the Church, which includes ...
1) sharing in the Sacraments (to the exclusion of the unbaptized, including catechumens, and the excommunicated)
2) profession of the true faith (which excludes heretics)
3) submission to the Holy Father (which excludes schismatics)
On a side note, St. Robert seems to contradict himself somewhat. When he laid out these criteria, he explicitly excluded catechumens based on their lack of Baptism and communion in the Sacraments, but then believed they could be somehow "in the vestibule of the Church" ... so, partly in, partly out I guess. This appears to be a contradiction that I've not seen a definitive answer for. St. Robert says that his reasoning is that the contrary "would seem too harsh", which isn't a particularly heavy-hitting theological reason. He combines a metaphor ("vestibule of the Church") with some emotional rationale of seeming too harsh. I think he was conflicted and tentative on this point at best.
-
I left this thread 2 days (weekend) to rest a bit, specially on Sunday. I hoped Ladislaus would recant his factually erroneous position (that he invented) that I revealed my sins in 2014. I told him directly to recant as readers of this thread can publicly see.
It seems that he doesn't want to recant a lie that he constructed out of carelessness (and perhaps a deep desire that such lie be the truth) and without double checking, he said such lie in public.
Such lie remained unopposed for a year, and after careful examination and refutation, he still refuses to take it back and eat his own careless words.
I will try to contact him privately, but I just want to publicly proclaim that, in a verifiable manner. I said the truth over this matter and Ladislaus, at this point, is obstinately allowing his lies (that he knows to be lies) to remain in the public record without any justifiable reparation to my person.
I thought better of you Ladislaus. I certainly over estimated you. Oh well.
I "constructed" nothing, you idiotic slanderer. I merely reported the assertion made in the video I posted that you revealed your sins in 2014 on your Youtube channel. Take it up with the composer of that video. I cannot recant anything, because I am in no position to decide whether he's lying or you are lying. One of you is lying. In order to believe you that you are telling the truth, I'd be asserting that the composer of the video is a liar. So I am undermined about the veracity of this claim.
Which leads me into why I said I wouldn't take your side, since that was a broader statement anyway. You are a petty, bitter, vindictive individual, exaggerating nonsensical charges such as how the Dimonds "defiled the glory of St. Alphonsus" by using some of his work without attribution and stating your intention to spend the rest of your life attacking the Dimonds because of the stupid COVID thing about which you were wrong. You declared them guilty of homicide for exposing the COVID hoax ... if you want to speak about slander. So I can't determine whether he's lying and or you're lying ... because neither of you are credible.
-
Please cite the relevant Canon Law, since I agree with Soubirous on this. Church has authority and jurisdiction over all those who have the character of Baptism, as is taught by Trent.
Providentissima Mater Ecclesia. By Pope Benedict XV
"That most provident Mother, the Church, endowed by her Divine Founder with all the requisites of
a perfect society, when, in obedience to the Lord’s mandate, she commenced in the very beginning
of her existence to teach and govern all nations, undertook by promulgating laws the task of guiding
and safeguarding the discipline of the clergy and the faithful."
As most on here might be aware, this is the Apostolic Constition promulgating the Code Canon Law of 1917, and in the initial paragrapgh it mentions that God tasked or mandated the Church to teach and govern all nations. Which I obviously agree with. So, in that sense, the jurisdiction of the Church is universal since the great comission.
But in the legal and strict sense. The Canon law mentions that it is promulgating laws in order to "guide and safeguard" the discipline of the clergy and the faithful.
Canon Law itself is aimed (in realist terms) to the Church members. Instead of regulating the behavior of schismatic russians, which is not its practical aim.
I also mentioned St. Paul, and if memory serves, I have read several times on encyclicals that Popes mention that their encyclical concerns chiefly to the faithful, even if a problem also includes heretics in the equation. I also have read sometimes Popes specifically quote St. Paul to mention how an issue is out of their scope.
In fact, in most encyclicals, or bulls, etc, it says the people to whom is adressed, which almost always is just catholics, like when it says that is adressed to the "Ordinaries, the Bishops, the Cardinals and all those who are in communion with the Apostolic See"
In the case of Jurisdiction, a similar point can be made with the Reign of Christ on earth. Since it is true that Jesus Christ is King of all the people in the world, and not only in a spiritual sense, but also as a social authority. But at the same time. Only Catholics submit their wills to their lawful King, while heretics and non-catholics resist him.
If you have a specific canon that mentions the opposite or similar commentary that mentions the opposite, I am open to change my view on this based on Catholic doctrine. But what I have read in general seems to indicate that legal, real, administrative jurisdiction by the Church only extends to Catholics, and non-catholics are dealt by God providentially.
********************************
*******************************
Also, when are you going to recant the lie you said out of carelessness? *******************
*********************
*********************
-
Providentissima Mater Ecclesia. By Pope Benedict XV
"That most provident Mother, the Church, endowed by her Divine Founder with all the requisites of
a perfect society, when, in obedience to the Lord’s mandate, she commenced in the very beginning
of her existence to teach and govern all nations, undertook by promulgating laws the task of guiding
and safeguarding the discipline of the clergy and the faithful."
This doesn't come close to proving your point, nor is it a citation from Canon Law that you asserted earlier. All this is saying is that the Church makes laws with the intent of guiding and safeguarding the clergy and the faithful. Read the language, where the Church undertook the task of guiding and safeguarding the clergy and the faithful ... by promulgating laws. This doesn't say one way or the other whether these laws are binding upon non-Catholics.
-
I "constructed" nothing, you idiotic slanderer. I merely reported the assertion made in the video I posted that you revealed your sins in 2014 on your Youtube channel. Take it up with the composer of that video. I cannot recant anything, because I am in no position to decide whether he's lying or you are lying. One of you is lying. In order to believe you that you are telling the truth, I'd be asserting that the composer of the video is a liar. So I am undermined about the veracity of this claim.
Which leads me into why I said I wouldn't take your side, since that was a broader statement anyway. You are a petty, bitter, vindictive individual, exaggerating nonsensical charges such as how the Dimonds "defiled the glory of St. Alphonsus" by using some of his work without attribution and stating your intention to spend the rest of your life attacking the Dimonds because of the stupid COVID thing about which you were wrong. You declared them guilty of homicide for exposing the COVID hoax ... if you want to speak about slander. So I can't determine whether he's lying and or you're lying ... because neither of you are credible.
Let me rephrase it. William Burke HAS NOT SAY WHAT YOU THINK HE SAID.
ASK HIM. His email is available on his youtube channel.
I already explained to you that he said that I revealed it on my youtube channel in 2020 AFTER they had already sent their letter to everyone. You then mentioned the screenshot said 2014 when that WAS SIMPLY A LIE. If you see the screenshot it says "3 weeks ago", 3 weeks ago since when?? since 2014??? NO, 3 weeks ago since he took the screenshot in 2020.
Even the screenshot says things that are indicative that the screenshot was taken in 2020, since it mentions the following: "Pray the Rosary everyday. There are 2 emails I almost forgot to disclose and are not on the video, here they are"
Emails of what? of the fight we were fighting in 2020.
Anywho, it is truly sickening to find that people who seem so well behaved in writing, kind of down to earth and available for reasonable conversations, are willing to burst out in a histeric parade of slanderous insults when specifically called on to correct lies constructed out of carelessness.
-
He already mentioned here
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg901467/#msg901467
It was your message here that mentions 2014
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg819411/#msg819411
So I was wrong. The mhfm fan does not claim 2014. I assumed they did, based on your post. So I will now ask you, where did you get 2014 from?
Hello Anthony. Even after I have explained to Ladislaus that what he claims (he, alone) is a lie. He bursted out in a histeria saying all sorts of unjust insults, including that 2014 is what the video say. Would you mind elaborating further from your perspective why what Ladislaus thought-he-saw was not true?
Perhaps if another person to whom he is not histerically against explains it he might see why what he say was a lie.
-
I merely reported the assertion made in the video I posted that you revealed your sins in 2014 on your Youtube channel.
Lad, the video that you posted did not say that the emails were made completely public in 2014. There is no such assertion that these private emails were made publicly available in 2014.
If you go to actual video that shows all emails that were made completely public, then you'll see the video was posted in 2020.
-
Adding to that.
The video sharing all the emails publicly was posted May 11, 2020.
The video that is supposed to be an exposé was posted Jun 21, 2020.
-
Queen of England was really and truly quicked out with the excommunication Bull. Same for Luther.
But even being kicked out can be medicinal, since it can make people reflect.
And it is also of doctrine that obstinate heresy does make the person exclude themselves from the Church. So it is a mortal sin (yes) but that mortal sin (according to Canon Law) does make you exit the Church.
Just like Bergoglio exited the Church decades before being selected as antipope.
Alright, I will allow that we agree - for the sake of the argument - regarding Luther and the Queen of England, and let's take it further and include *all* those who were Catholics but now explicitly, publicly and purposely slander and criticize the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith directly. Let's say the Church teaches that all these aforementioned have expelled themselves from the Catholic faith and are no longer members of the Catholic Church.
We cannot say that this expulsion is medicinal when the only medicine that cures them is now denied to them by the Church.
What we can say is that the Church has disowned them, kicked them completely out of the Church, and in doing so has done what she could do to ensure that they have no hope whatsoever, which means what the Church has done is sentenced them to spend the rest of their days outside of the Church resulting in them spending their eternity in hell. IOW, the Church Christ founded on earth to save all men, has instead, condemned her own members by expelling them.
This is what we are agreeing on - for the sake of the argument.
Now that that's out of the way, let us turn our attention to reality.
Today we have all those Catholics, billions of them since at least V2, from laymen to nuns to priests, to bishops and popes, all of whom have been deceived into losing the Catholic faith and into believing and preaching heresy and are now obstinate in those heresies, even loving those heresies, all the while firmly believing that they are good Catholics in good standing with the Church, and will even argue toward that end and against anyone saying anything to the contrary.
According to what you've been saying, the Church has expelled each and every one of these Catholics who've lost the faith and now believe heresies, which means the Church has denied them their medicine, therefore the Church has taken away their hope of salvation. This is the result of what you've been saying.
-
What we can say is that the Church has disowned them, kicked them completely out of the Church, and in doing so has done what she could do to ensure that they have no hope whatsoever, which means what the Church has done is sentenced them to spend the rest of their days outside of the Church resulting in them spending their eternity in hell. IOW, the Church Christ founded on earth to save all men, has instead, condemned her own members by expelling them.
I see it like the prodigal son.
-
Today we have all those Catholics, billions of them since at least V2, from laymen to nuns to priests, to bishops and popes, all of whom have been deceived into losing the Catholic faith and into believing and preaching heresy and are now obstinate in those heresies, even loving those heresies, all the while firmly believing that they are good Catholics in good standing with the Church, and will even argue toward that end and against anyone saying anything to the contrary.
According to what you've been saying, the Church has expelled each and every one of these Catholics who've lost the faith and now believe heresies, which means the Church has denied them their medicine, therefore the Church has taken away their hope of salvation. This is the result of what you've been saying.
I see it as God allows them to be blind as punishment for their sins. They aren't cut off in the same sense as schematics are, but are dead body parts yet to cut off. Most of these people are material heretics. Perhaps the 'Pope' is too, as ridiculous as it sounds, as even trad Catholics deny baptism in cases of invincible ignorance.
Once again like the prodigal son. The Church decree just makes their state obvious. But like the prodigal son's father, the Church is always looking for him to return.
-
I see it as God allows them to be blind as punishment for their sins. They aren't cut off in the same sense as schematics are, but are dead body parts yet to cut off. Most of these people are material heretics. Perhaps the 'Pope' is too, as ridiculous as it sounds, as even trad Catholics deny baptism in cases of invincible ignorance.
Once again like the prodigal son. The Church decree just makes their state obviously. But like the prodigal son's father, the Church is always looking for him to return.
Yes, the prodigal son exemplifies the matter in that just as he never ceased to be the father's son, Catholics never cease to be sons of holy mother the Church.
The conciliar popes all believed and still believe the lie that whatever they do cannot harm the faithful because they are under the protection of the Holy Ghost. Most people believe this, even most trads believe that this is the de fide teaching of the Church. It isn't at all a teaching of the Church, but if it were a teaching of the Church, then all trads are the ones outside of the Church and must immediately abandon the true faith and skedaddle on over to the new faith asap.
-
Yes, the prodigal son exemplifies the matter in that just as he never ceased to be the father's son, Catholics never cease to be sons of holy mother the Church.
The conciliar popes all believed and still believe the lie that whatever they do cannot harm the faithful because they are under the protection of the Holy Ghost. Most people believe this, even most trads believe that this is the de fide teaching of the Church. It isn't at all a teaching of the Church, but if it were a teaching of the Church, then all trads are the ones outside of the Church and must immediately abandon the true faith and skedaddle on over to the new faith asap.
But are they really under the protection of the Holy Ghost if they aren't valid bishops?
Perhaps the sedeprivitaonist position is more reliable. I just don't see how 'Popes' can kiss the quran, partake in false religions etc.
-
But are they really under the protection of the Holy Ghost if they aren't valid bishops?
Perhaps the sedeprivitaonist position is more reliable. I just don't see how 'Popes' can kiss the quran, partake in false religions etc.
They can do that because they are human. Popes are not impeccable, there is not a single sin they cannot commit. They are divinely protected when they define a doctrine concerning faith or morals ex cathedra - this is dogma. Beyond that there is no divine guarantee that the pope cannot do, what the conciliar popes have done.
-
Adding to that.
The video sharing all the emails publicly was posted May 11, 2020.
The video that is supposed to be an exposé was posted Jun 21, 2020.
Thank you for standing up for the truth in this case we are discussing.
Let's hope that Ladislaus acknowledges this error and recants it.
-
Lad, the video that you posted did not say that the emails were made completely public in 2014. There is no such assertion that these private emails were made publicly available in 2014.
If you go to actual video that shows all emails that were made completely public, then you'll see the video was posted in 2020.
Thank you.
-
I re-viewed the video here and admit that I erred in misinterpreting what he said. He did not state that the e-mail was made public in 2014 on his Youtube channel but that the 2014 e-mail was made public on his Youtube channel. So the date referred to the date of the e-mail, and not the date of its publication on his Youtube channel. So the date and sequence of events is unknown. I apologize for the mistake.
At the same time, Jorge, I now ask you to recant the accusation that I "lied". I misheard and misinterpreted what was being said, and it was a mistake, not a lie.
Also, Jorge, I ask you to recant the accusation that the Dimond Brothers are guilty of homicide for exposing the COVID hoax and that they "defiled the glory of St. Alphonsus".
-
Alright, I will allow that we agree - for the sake of the argument - regarding Luther and the Queen of England, and let's take it further and include *all* those who were Catholics but now explicitly, publicly and purposely slander and criticize the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith directly. Let's say the Church teaches that all these aforementioned have expelled themselves from the Catholic faith and are no longer members of the Catholic Church.
We cannot say that this expulsion is medicinal when the only medicine that cures them is now denied to them by the Church.
What we can say is that the Church has disowned them, kicked them completely out of the Church, and in doing so has done what she could do to ensure that they have no hope whatsoever, which means what the Church has done is sentenced them to spend the rest of their days outside of the Church resulting in them spending their eternity in hell. IOW, the Church Christ founded on earth to save all men, has instead, condemned her own members by expelling them.
This is what we are agreeing on - for the sake of the argument.
Now that that's out of the way, let us turn our attention to reality.
Today we have all those Catholics, billions of them since at least V2, from laymen to nuns to priests, to bishops and popes, all of whom have been deceived into losing the Catholic faith and into believing and preaching heresy and are now obstinate in those heresies, even loving those heresies, all the while firmly believing that they are good Catholics in good standing with the Church, and will even argue toward that end and against anyone saying anything to the contrary.
According to what you've been saying, the Church has expelled each and every one of these Catholics who've lost the faith and now believe heresies, which means the Church has denied them their medicine, therefore the Church has taken away their hope of salvation. This is the result of what you've been saying.
A person being a heretic out of their own choice is just what they chose to be. In fact, the word heretic derives from the root of choice, if memory serves.
If a person decided that, and God respected such choice, where is the injustice? I don't see it.
An obstinate heretic (since it has not repented from his heresies, thats why is obstinate) cannot take communion profitably. So it is better that he is unable to take the Blessed Sacrament, since doing so would only merit such person a worse punishment.
As far as billion people being on the road to hell. Perhaps a clarification of my ecclesiological position is in order. My position is that (according to Catholic theology) a baby who is baptized validly is a Catholic in the state of grace and innocence. So this would mean that millions (perhaps even as much as hundreds of millions) of Catholics in the state of grace and innocence are currently living and are present on all the planet. These people, in their current state, are in great spiritual health. (just like my children).
Then you get to children validly baptized who have the age of reason (7 year olds and up) which I think is fair to say almost all (perhaps up to 97%) are Catholic.
Then you go to pre-teens, from 10 to 14 years old. And then, even if they had seen errors in the world and being misled, they might still be Catholics, just Catholics in error, unless their parents are explicitly anti-catholic (like protestants) and they had by that age consciously adopted an anticatholic mindset. But for families who claim to be Catholic, such preteens might still be Catholic, although many are in error, this error might not yet be obstinate.
This numbers start plunging when they become adults. When the heresies they believe become firm.
So, is not as if the whole world is non-catholic. AND WE ARE NOT IN THE GREAT APOSTASY. Since hundreds of millions are still Catholic around the world.
Now, let's compare such ecclesiology, to the Dimondite ecclesiology (which is also a common mindset in the trad inc world in general) Dimondites believe that faith is almost extinct. That literally most countries have no catholics. They somehow have forgotten of the existence of Catholic babies for decades. Perhaps because they have no biological children of their own.
I remember telling my brother in law how shcoked I was to realize I was the "only catholic" on my mexican city that I knew of. This nonsense I say to him in around 2013, he did not correct me, but in fact, if memory serves, commented on the same trend. When I said to him that I was the only one on that city (an 8 million mexican city, mind you) I meant, Dimondite.
It is a common occurence for Dimondites to say things in social media like "There are no Catholics left, currently, the people who hold the faith and tradition are almost totally alone" and they believe it literally.
Sadly, such doomerist, erroneous misconception (who leads to pride, desperation and other problems) is not uniquely dimondite. Many SSPX talk and believe similarly, that if you don't know of the SSPX you could not had retained your Catholic identity bestowed on you via baptism.
However, I would say that being in a traditionally inclined group would extend the runway of catholicism in their children. Meaning, a children of an SSPX parent might get children who retain their Catholic identity up their adulthood, since many trad inc people only read books of saints and catholic classics. And they many times loss their faith due to an obstinate attachment to Lefebvre's heresies. And similar things happend to the Dimondites. Who when they embrace the false prophesies of the dimonds and their errors, they loss their faith.
But anywho. I undesrand that my position is not something that is common to find. I personally came to that conclusion after months of reflection after leaving the dimondite cult. But most trad inc groups have a bias similar to that of the Dimonds. Which is sad. I think that's one of the reasons why the false prophesies of the dimonds have not been exposed as much as needed, since most groups think similarly (that we are at the end of the end, etc).
-
I re-viewed the video here and admit that I erred in misinterpreting what he said. He did not state that the e-mail was made public in 2014 on his Youtube channel but that the 2014 e-mail was made public on his Youtube channel. So the date referred to the date of the e-mail, and not the date of its publication on his Youtube channel. So the date and sequence of events is unknown. I apologize for the mistake.
At the same time, Jorge, I now ask you to recant the accusation that I "lied". I misheard and misinterpreted what was being said, and it was a mistake, not a lie.
Also, Jorge, I ask you to recant the accusation that the Dimond Brothers are guilty of homicide for exposing the COVID hoax and that they "defiled the glory of St. Alphonsus".
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake.
I said initially that it was a factually incorrect thing you say. Which is accurate (first messages).
I explained it to you in detail, and many came to see my explanation as accurate. (more recent messages).
You then attacked me and called me all sorts of negative adjectives. Saying firmly that you would not apologize even after the explanation.
So, after your firm and public position that you will not recant your factually incorrect error. After the explanation was known and a number of days passed for you to just double check on your own, your error could be charachterized as a lie. Since after the explanation, what you were holding onto what as a lie.
Even an error in a series of events are strictly speaking lies. But I mentioned it like I mentioned it at the beginning taking into account your probable misinterpretation. Which is nevertheless very grave negligence.
So, I think the scalation of the description of what I saw you did was reasonable.
On Covid 19
I will not recant what I believe to be true in a secular matter. Since this is a matter not even a Pope can dogmatize, I am in my right (in conscience) to express my assesment of covid 19 and its consequences as much as I like. And the accusation of murder not only steems from my conviction that covid 19 is real and was dangerous. But primarily on the monstrous imposition in conscience that the Dimonds did to their followers. That could had lead to murder.
On St. Alphonsus. I uphold that St. Alphonsus is a great saint in heaven who deserves every inch of his earned glory, both natural and supernatural, to be respected and scrupulously attributed to him. I publicly declared the Dimonds to be preternaturally-prideful to dared to misattribute to themselves what is the writing of an epic saint.
I would further declare that I don't think anyone can steal writings from sainst to MISATRIBUTE such writings from saints to themselves. and that doing so is a mortal sin and a sacrilege.
In fact, I would bring to the stand SARABAITE PETER DIMOND. Who called the swedish radical schismatic a criminal and a stealer since the schismatics from sweden (prophecy film, very active in the 2013 and 2015) were re-posting the videos of the Dimonds on their website. These people from sweden hided in the past the links to the dimondite website and their names, since they believed the dimonds were bad (which they are, just not for the reasons they believe) but paradoxically, they wanted to share the videos of the Dimonds.
It seems that the dimonds threaten to sue since they no longer hide the links.
In that debate (that I have on my hard drive, since I collected the videos of the dimonds when I was a dimondite) he called the swedish guy a criminal for trying to make the video look like it was theirs (which was not even that accurate of an accusation, since they didn'ty put their name onto the video, only struck down the dimonds name).
Well, imagine what happened to that debate?? IT WAS MADE PRIVATE (I can pass you a copy via dropbox or similar services so that you can heard sarabaite pete's in his own words). This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Fy8ONWaSA
You can confirm the link existed and is from the dimonds by checking this page: vat i can catholic .com/eric-hoyle-epic-apostasy/
Here the URL has the name of the debate: vat i can catholic .com/sacraments-from-undeclared-heretics/ - PAGE NOT FOUND LOL.
Also, do you think the dimonds only stole from St. Alphonsus??? That was just the most prominent example. An account named Friar Minor has claimed that the dimonds had done videos of things he had mentioned in twitter months before on very obscure topics. And They also STOLE THE BOOK ON WATER BAPTISM FROM RICHARD IBRANYI.
The Book on such subject was written by Richard in 1997 (if memory serves) by Tan Books. I have copies of the cover and the table of contents, and it was published by Most Holy Family Monastery. Ibranyi plainly and publicly claims they stole basically the whole thing.
So, this is not even just a one off. It is a pernicious, diabolical pattern fueled by pride, to steal and plagiarize others.
I would ask you instead to stop defending such miscreants and stop saying that a saint deserves their writings stolen. But I think that appeal would matter little to you.
I guess we can go to a middle ground and you can gather 100 traditionally inclined people you know (SSPX, CMRI, etc) and we will mention the facts of the matter, and let's see how many agree with your insane position. Since I had never seen such defense for stealing writings from saints with MISATTRIBUTION, not even THE DIMONDS defend such extreme view. They prefer to hide and never adress it.
-
I re-view....
I repeated the response without that intention. Ignore.
-
So the date and sequence of events is unknown. I apologize for the mistake.
Even when you correct one thing, you try to sneak other factual error.
The sequence of events is NOT unknown.
I have already explained the series of events in detail. With THIRD PARTY tools to back up my claims (waybackmachine, youtube, twitter links) so you don't even have to take me at my word.
You can even ask william burke himself about the series of events, and although he would adcsribe to me a different intention, the succesion of events is not even disputed by them.
Ughhhh.
-
A person being a heretic out of their own choice is just what they chose to be. In fact, the word heretic derives from the root of choice, if memory serves....
You are side tracking, apparently in your effort of avoiding the inevitable - and that was the point I attempted to make. The point being that by your measure, which is by the same measure of most (all?) sedes, all *adult* Catholics who believe in one or some other heresies have ipso facto been self expelled right out of the Church. They did this to themselves by believing and preaching the exact same heresies that the pope is expelled for, as well as all the NO bishops, priests, nuns, ministers and all NO teachers. They are all guilty of the exact same crime of heresy.
What you and sedes do, is presume to limit the expulsions to the pope alone, (and on occasion other members of the hierarchy also), but mainly it is limited it to the pope. Why is that?
I have yet to hear any sede insist as strenuously that all those billions of *adult* Catholics who are and became heretics since V2 are outside of the Church - along with the pope, whose teachings they all believe and repeat, spreading heresies among the people all the while believing the heresies to be authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
All this means is if you are going to expel the pope, you have no choice but to expel the billions of the popes' faithful because they are just as guilty as he is.
-
I have yet to hear any sede insist as strenuously that all those billions of *adult* Catholics who are and became heretics since V2 are outside of the Church - along with the pope, whose teachings they all believe and repeat, spreading heresies among the people all the while believing the heresies to be authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
All this means is if you are going to expel the pope, you have no choice but to expel the billions of the popes' faithful because they are just as guilty as he is.
This is a great point. I imagine the response is due to "ignorance". According to sedes, the pope/clerics have a 0% chance of being ignorant, thus they are "easily" (so they say) judged and kicked out. While everyone else gets a pass, because "they were following the pope/clerics" and can plead ignorance.
Further, most sedes believe in BOD, which means that non-catholics have a greater chance at salvation than do the clerics in the Church. :confused:
As St Augustine said, those who would expand the notion of salvation, beyond the narrow gates described in Scripture, enter the "vortex of confusion".
-
Even when you correct one thing, you try to sneak other factual error.
The sequence of events is NOT unknown.
It is to me. You are not credible, and I have nothing but your word it. You are motivated by a sad and childish agenda and have admitted that you'll spend the rest of your life attacking the Dimond Brothers.
-
This is a great point.
No, it really isn't.
-
No, it really isn't.
Yes, it is. It highlights the inherent hypocrisy (which you've pointed out many times) wherein many, many Trads don't hesitate to judge the conciliar con-artists as heretics (and rightfully so), but then turn around and apply the same conciliar errors (i.e. anti-EENS invincible ignorance/BOD and universal salvation) towards all manner of non-catholics.
-
You are side tracking, apparently in your effort of avoiding the inevitable - and that was the point I attempted to make. The point being that by your measure, which is by the same measure of most (all?) sedes, all *adult* Catholics who believe in one or some other heresies have ipso facto been self expelled right out of the Church. They did this to themselves by believing and preaching the exact same heresies that the pope is expelled for, as well as all the NO bishops, priests, nuns, ministers and all NO teachers. They are all guilty of the exact same crime of heresy.
What you and sedes do, is presume to limit the expulsions to the pope alone, (and on occasion other members of the hierarchy also), but mainly it is limited it to the pope. Why is that?
I have yet to hear any sede insist as strenuously that all those billions of *adult* Catholics who are and became heretics since V2 are outside of the Church - along with the pope, whose teachings they all believe and repeat, spreading heresies among the people all the while believing the heresies to be authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
All this means is if you are going to expel the pope, you have no choice but to expel the billions of the popes' faithful because they are just as guilty as he is.
Ridiculous. Indeed, probably 95%+ of all NO Catholics are heretics, but not all, and the reason not all is because pertinacious heresy requires adhering to error in such a way as to undermine the formal motive of all belief, the authority of the Church. Problem with many ordinary Catholics, especially the lay people, who don't have the duty of state to theological analyze the teachings of the Church, is that they believe what they believe because they THINK it was taught by the Church. This is precisely what's known as material error and does not constitute heresy. Most of them probably don't even know what Vatican II taught. In fact, those in the Novus Ordo who still have the faith left are being scandalized by the heretical ramblings of Jorge Bergoglio. But most Novus Ordites have a "cafeteria Catholic" mentality where they can take or leave the teaching of the Church as they feel like it. That's a clear indication of lacking the formal motive of faith.
And nobody is "expelling" the "Pope" from the Church, nor does Sedevacantism have anything to do with the personal heresies of the papal claimants. It's about one thing and one thing only. It is not possible for a legitimate Pope to corrupt the Church's Magisterium, nor to corrupt the Public Worship of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre himself agreed that the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy precludes the type of destruction we have seen. So, despite how you like to quote +Lefebvre, he's not on your side regarding that matter. +Lefebvre merely stated that there could theoretically be other possibilities, but agreed that SVism is a real possibility.
Those who think like you deny the indefectibility of the Church and might as well be Old Catholics; you're perilously close to heresy ... if you haven't already crossed the line. If you want to believe that Montini was the legitimate pope but was replaced in public by a double with the wrong ears, then more power to you. But don't tell me that the Holy Catholic Church and legitimate Popes have corrupted the Catholic Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church. And I'm tired of hearing your stupidity about how what you decide isn't Catholic isn't "Magisterium". You're replacing the Magisterium with your own private judgment, which is what St. Thomas teaches all heretics do.
-
Yes, it is. It highlights the inherent hypocrisy (which you've pointed out many times) wherein many, many Trads don't hesitate to judge the conciliar con-artists as heretics (and rightfully so), but then turn around and apply the same conciliar errors (i.e. anti-EENS invincible ignorance/BOD and universal salvation) towards all manner of non-catholics.
What point are you making? There's such a thing as material error. It has nothing to do with invincible ignorance or BoD. When someone mistakenly thinks something is taught by the Church, but actually have a heretical view, that's called material heresy. But the fact that they INTEND to adhere to the teaching of the Church means that they're not formal heretics. There's a small minority of Conciliar Catholics who adhere to Vatican II because they think it is the teaching of the Church and who are therefore still Catholic, since there's is a material error only. Non-Catholics are all in a state of FORMAL error because they do not base their beliefs on the authority of the Church, but on what amounts to a substitute rule of faith, ultimately their own private judgment (cf. St. Thomas). This is the difference between non-Catholics per se and Novus Ordites. Granted that 95%+ of them are formal heretics, based on their own polling data, but there are many who still formally retain the Catholic faith even if they are in material error.
-
What point are you making?
I'm definitely not talking about novus ordo catholics. It doesn't matter at this point.
-
Ridiculous. Indeed, probably 95%+ of all NO Catholics are heretics, but not all, and the reason not all is because pertinacious heresy requires adhering to error in such a way as to undermine the formal motive of all belief, the authority of the Church. Problem with many ordinary Catholics, especially the lay people, who don't have the duty of state to theological analyze the teachings of the Church, is that they believe what they believe because they THINK it was taught by the Church. This is precisely what's known as material error and does not constitute heresy. Most of them probably don't even know what Vatican II taught. In fact, those in the Novus Ordo who still have the faith left are being scandalized by the heretical ramblings of Jorge Bergoglio. But most Novus Ordites have a "cafeteria Catholic" mentality where they can take or leave the teaching of the Church as they feel like it. That's a clear indication of lacking the formal motive of faith.
Who said anything about pertinacious heresy except you and you alone? In your attempt to complicate that which is not complicated, I will spell out the hypocrisy of sedeism another way...
1) Pope preaches heresy / is a heretic = self expelled from the Church, is therefore no longer a Catholic, no longer a member (non-member = non-Catholic = cannot be pope)
2) All those Catholics who believe popes' heresies / preach popes heresies / are heretics = self expelled from the Church, are no longer Catholic, are no longer members.
Both the pope and all the Catholic people who believe his heresies are heretics, both are guilty of the same sin, differing only in the degree of culpability.
Per sedeism, there is no pope due to *his* heresies expelling him from the Church. If that is true then all those who believe his heresies are not members due to *their* heresies, which have expelled them from the Church.
The question you need to ask yourself is; If it does not work that way, then why would the pope bother to preach heresies at all? There would be absolutely no reason whatsoever for the heresies or the entire new religion of the NO if the Catholic people remain unaffected in their religious life from listening, believing, preaching and handing down as being Catholic, all those lies, heresies and errors.
This is where the sede *should* come face to face with their self imposed conundrum.
-
And nobody is "expelling" the "Pope" from the Church, nor does Sedevacantism have anything to do with the personal heresies of the papal claimants. It's about one thing and one thing only. It is not possible for a legitimate Pope to corrupt the Church's Magisterium, nor to corrupt the Public Worship of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre himself agreed that the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy precludes the type of destruction we have seen. So, despite how you like to quote +Lefebvre, he's not on your side regarding that matter. +Lefebvre merely stated that there could theoretically be other possibilities, but agreed that SVism is a real possibility.
You can keep repeating this same fallacy but that won't change what +ABL did and preached. You can quote him to high heaven, but I was there and I know, I saw what happened with my own eyes and why he did not and would have never accepted sedeism, even if in a fleeting moment or two he questioned it just like pretty much everyone did in those days.
-
Those who think like you deny the indefectibility of the Church and might as well be Old Catholics; you're perilously close to heresy ... if you haven't already crossed the line. If you want to believe that Montini was the legitimate pope but was replaced in public by a double with the wrong ears, then more power to you. But don't tell me that the Holy Catholic Church and legitimate Popes have corrupted the Catholic Magisterium and the Public Worship of the Church. And I'm tired of hearing your stupidity about how what you decide isn't Catholic isn't "Magisterium". You're replacing the Magisterium with your own private judgment, which is what St. Thomas teaches all heretics do.
No Lad, you have it completely backwards. I do not deny the Church's indefectibility, I depend on it, as all Catholic should. Without that to depend on we may as well join the NOers. If *you* believed in it, you would know with absolute certainty of faith that not even the pope, or 1000 popes in succession could ever destroy the Church.
You need to remind yourself that Christ is the head of the Church, not the pope.
-
You are side tracking, apparently in your effort of avoiding the inevitable - and that was the point I attempted to make. The point being that by your measure, which is by the same measure of most (all?) sedes, all *adult* Catholics who believe in one or some other heresies have ipso facto been self expelled right out of the Church. They did this to themselves by believing and preaching the exact same heresies that the pope is expelled for, as well as all the NO bishops, priests, nuns, ministers and all NO teachers. They are all guilty of the exact same crime of heresy.
What you and sedes do, is presume to limit the expulsions to the pope alone, (and on occasion other members of the hierarchy also), but mainly it is limited it to the pope. Why is that?
I have yet to hear any sede insist as strenuously that all those billions of *adult* Catholics who are and became heretics since V2 are outside of the Church - along with the pope, whose teachings they all believe and repeat, spreading heresies among the people all the while believing the heresies to be authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
All this means is if you are going to expel the pope, you have no choice but to expel the billions of the popes' faithful because they are just as guilty as he is.
Everyone who is obstinately believing heresies is a heretic. Yes.
However, the amount of people claiming to be Catholic is not billions (plural) but 1.36 billion (one billion, 300 million), and from these, not all are adults.
But yeah, a ton of heretics out there, I don't dispute that. Don't know why I would avoid stating that, since that is just plain reality.
-
This is a great point. I imagine the response is due to "ignorance". According to sedes, the pope/clerics have a 0% chance of being ignorant, thus they are "easily" (so they say) judged and kicked out. While everyone else gets a pass, because "they were following the pope/clerics" and can plead ignorance.
Further, most sedes believe in BOD, which means that non-catholics have a greater chance at salvation than do the clerics in the Church. :confused:
As St Augustine said, those who would expand the notion of salvation, beyond the narrow gates described in Scripture, enter the "vortex of confusion".
The general consensus in sedevacantists (in my experience) is that catholics are few in the whole planet. And depending on the particular sedevacantist they would include or exclude more people. For instance, some CMRI people seem to regard conservative novus ordo's as catholic, alongside SSPX...
The Dimonds (also sedes) exclude everyone but dimondites, very strict and not accurate.
The ones who claim only Bergoglio is a heretic but pro-bergoglio-Bishops are Catholic, seems more like an SSPX or sedeprivationist view, since sedevacante almost always implies that all the "Bishops" of Bergoglio are not even Bishops at all. So not sure what you are referring to.
-
It is to me. You are not credible, and I have nothing but your word it. You are motivated by a sad and childish agenda and have admitted that you'll spend the rest of your life attacking the Dimond Brothers.
I have presented you with twitter links that includes timestamps (that I have no control over) with content I didn't write (not control over) youtube links, website links I have no control over, etc
I have mention you could contact my enemies (who don't dispute the timeline of factual events) but you don't care.
But anywho, is not as if by now I expect more of you. I deeply overestimated you and thought you were honest-leaning. My fault.
-
It is to me. You are not credible, and I have nothing but your word it. You are motivated by a sad and childish agenda and have admitted that you'll spend the rest of your life attacking the Dimond Brothers.
I could even send you all the relevant emails to your direct email adress, and the timestamp of such emails (and its authenticity) is controled by gmail, nor me.
But at this point is like giving Ossobuco to a dog.
An attempt to get the truth out is made, and will be made even after this. If anyone has any further questions they can contact me via my profile.
-
You are side tracking, apparently in your effort of avoiding the inevitable - and that was the point I attempted to make. The point being that by your measure, which is by the same measure of most (all?) sedes, all *adult* Catholics who believe in one or some other heresies have ipso facto been self expelled right out of the Church. They did this to themselves by believing and preaching the exact same heresies that the pope is expelled for, as well as all the NO bishops, priests, nuns, ministers and all NO teachers. They are all guilty of the exact same crime of heresy.
What you and sedes do, is presume to limit the expulsions to the pope alone, (and on occasion other members of the hierarchy also), but mainly it is limited it to the pope. Why is that?
I have yet to hear any sede insist as strenuously that all those billions of *adult* Catholics who are and became heretics since V2 are outside of the Church - along with the pope, whose teachings they all believe and repeat, spreading heresies among the people all the while believing the heresies to be authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
All this means is if you are going to expel the pope, you have no choice but to expel the billions of the popes' faithful because they are just as guilty as he is.
What about these quotes?
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
“It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all thinking opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928:
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?... he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
-
What about these quotes?
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
“It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all thinking opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928:
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?... he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
The popes above are talking to and about people, they are speaking to and about all the Catholic people everywhere and for all time, they are speaking to Catholic laypeople and clergy of whatever rank everywhere. This is who the above popes are speaking to. The sedes misinterpret then propose that these popes are teaching only in regards to the conciliar popes (and occasionally to other members of the conciliar hierarchy) while every other NO heretic on earth gets a free pass. How does this make any sense to anyone?
So I ask: If the conciliar popes are not popes because they are not members due to their heresies, then how is it that all those billions since V2 who profess and live the exact same heresies are not also outside of the Church?
The fact which cannot be disputed is that each and everyone of them, from Catholic layman to pope, can be absolved by confessing their sins (of heresies) to the priest in the Sacrament of Penance, which is something that only members of the Church are permitted and encouraged to do.
Those Catholics guilty of the sins of heresy can also receive the Last Rites in their last agony, which is another sacrament that only Catholics are permitted to receive, whereas all those who are not members are forbidden to receive these sacraments. This matter is simplified by saying if they were not members then they would not be able to receive these sacraments, leaving them in the same sorry state as those outside of the Church, without any hope at all.
So this is the way we know that "once a Catholic always a Catholic" is true. It is because the sedes must remove the pope entirely from the Chair by first removing him from the Church that it is wholly necessary to deny this truth by misinterpreting what the Church teaches and convince others to do the same, which is to say the main purpose that this truth must be denied is in order to maintain the sede belief.
-
The popes above are talking to and about people ...
So, from Mr. "as it is written", we suddenly get an "interpretation". "What the popes REALLY mean is ..."
-
So, from Mr. "as it is written", we suddenly get an "interpretation". "What the popes REALLY mean is ..."
Lame ^^
-
So, from Mr. "as it is written", we suddenly get an "interpretation". "What the popes REALLY mean is ..."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi is addressed to: "To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See."
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos is addressed to: "To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum is addressed to: "To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See."
Can't find Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull "Cantate Domino" but I think it's safe to say that he is addressing his teachings to the same, and that he is not addressing future (or past) popes either.
At any rate, you will not find any of the above popes addressing future (or past) popes, only the sedes give "an "interpretation". "What the popes REALLY means.." while accusing those who do no such thing as being guilty of doing that.
-
You are side tracking, apparently in your effort of avoiding the inevitable - and that was the point I attempted to make. The point being that by your measure, which is by the same measure of most (all?) sedes, all *adult* Catholics who believe in one or some other heresies have ipso facto been self expelled right out of the Church. They did this to themselves by believing and preaching the exact same heresies that the pope is expelled for, as well as all the NO bishops, priests, nuns, ministers and all NO teachers. They are all guilty of the exact same crime of heresy.
What you and sedes do, is presume to limit the expulsions to the pope alone, (and on occasion other members of the hierarchy also), but mainly it is limited it to the pope. Why is that?
I have yet to hear any sede insist as strenuously that all those billions of *adult* Catholics who are and became heretics since V2 are outside of the Church - along with the pope, whose teachings they all believe and repeat, spreading heresies among the people all the while believing the heresies to be authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.
All this means is if you are going to expel the pope, you have no choice but to expel the billions of the popes' faithful because they are just as guilty as he is.
.
Huh. How strange. I certainly do believe that people who call themselves Catholic but who profess modernism are heretics and outside the Church. Yes, nearly a billion of them. You really think you have the same faith as the people at your local Novus Ordo church? :confused:
The vast majority of those people do reject Catholic teaching as well, though, so it's not as simple as you described it. Most modernist "Catholics" reject Catholic teaching on divorce, abortion, sodomy, transubstantiation, and other things. So, even on that level it's not correct to say they are members of the Church since they knowingly reject Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals.
You've never heard a sedevacantist say this? I'm surprised.
Otherwise, you are denying the unity of faith that exists in the Church, and the Catholic Church becomes little more than an association like AAA where all you need is a membership card to belong to it and it doesn't matter what your philosophical or religious ideas are. This is definitely not Catholic teaching.
-
But the distinction, Stubborn, is between those who pertinaciously adhere to heresies vs. those who materially hold heretical propositions in good faith due to the confusion of the times. Lay Faithful are not generally required to sift through what (they believe to be) the Magisterium and determine which teachings are true and which heretical.
Now, when it gets to bishops and the pope, ignorance is no excuse, since, if you recall, ignorance is culpable if you have an obligation in your state in life to know better. Pope and Bishops, whose duty it is to teach the faithful, are absolutely bound to now the faith. So even in that sense there's a different standard for the "hierarchy" than for lay faithful. I know many conservative Novus Ordites who still clearly have the faith but are confused. Many of them don't even know what exactly Vatican II teaches, much less do they have the education or background in theology to determine what's true and what isn't. Nor are they required to given their state as lay faithful.
There are a handful of SVs who make no allowance for material error, but most realize the distinction between formal error (pertinacious adherence to heresy that undermines the formal motive of faith) and material error (people who wrongly believe in a certain proposition.
Formal Heresy: "I know the Church teaches transubstantiation, but I don't believe in it anyway".
-- individual rejects the teaching authority of the Church, the formal motive of faith
Material Heresy: "Well, the Church taught Religious Liberty, so I accept it."
-- individual accepts the teaching authority of the Church, but is mistaken about what the "Church" teaches
Now, I don't particularly care about the status of Jorge, material vs. formal. I only know that the Holy Ghost would protect the papacy from teaching such grave error to the Church. So it's not so much about what Jorge personally believes, but about what the V2 "Papacy" has taught. It's impossible for a legitimate Pope to teach such grave error to the Church. Maybe Jorge is not pope because he's a heretic. Maybe he's not pope because he's not a valid bishop/priest. Maybe he's not pope due to illegitimate election due to collusion. Maybe the real Jorge is locked up in a dungeon and has been replaced by a double. Maybe Jorge is acting under duress, due to blackmail, and therefore his teaching acts are not free or invalid. Whatever. I'm not concerned. I only know that these grave errors were not taught to the Church by a legitimate Pope acting freely.
-
Huh. How strange. I certainly do believe that people who call themselves Catholic but who profess modernism are heretics and outside the Church. Yes, nearly a billion of them. You really think you have the same faith as the people at your local Novus Ordo church? :confused:
I say they're heretics as well, but if they were ever members (had the Catholic faith) to begin with, they are still members by virtue of the fact that they can go to confession in just the same manner you and I can and confess their mortal sin(s) of heresy.
You've never heard a sedevacantist say this? I'm surprised.
Surprised? Simply read back a few posts and you will hear it being disputed from sedes as well.
-
Material Heresy: "Well, the Church taught Religious Liberty, so I accept it."
-- individual accepts the teaching authority of the Church, but is mistaken about what the "Church" teaches
The individual was taught this by the pope, and the pope was taught this by V2. If you are going to grant a free pass at all, then both must get the free pass because both are only in material heresy.
I too believe the pope is expected to know better, and *perhaps* at one time before V2 he did know better, but as it is now, he is a material heretic because he "is mistaken about what the "Church" teaches." The conciliar popes all "materially hold [and teach] heretical propositions in good faith due to the confusion of the times."
-
Now, I don't particularly care about the status of Jorge, material vs. formal. I only know that the Holy Ghost would protect the papacy from teaching such grave error to the Church. So it's not so much about what Jorge personally believes, but about what the V2 "Papacy" has taught. It's impossible for a legitimate Pope to teach such grave error to the Church. Maybe Jorge is not pope because he's a heretic. Maybe he's not pope because he's not a valid bishop/priest. Maybe he's not pope due to illegitimate election due to collusion. Maybe the real Jorge is locked up in a dungeon and has been replaced by a double. Maybe Jorge is acting under duress, due to blackmail, and therefore his teaching acts are not free or invalid. Whatever. I'm not concerned. I only know that these grave errors were not taught to the Church by a legitimate Pope acting freely.
The defined dogma promises divine protection whenever the pope defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals ex cathedra.
It is at least a mistake to believe that the Holy Ghost would never permit the pope and hierarchy to teach grave error to the whole Church, just as it is at least a mistake to believe that nearly the whole Church would accept as Catholic truths all those grave errors.
-
The defined dogma promises divine protection whenever the pope defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals ex cathedra.
It is at least a mistake to believe that the Holy Ghost would never permit the pope and hierarchy to teach grave error to the whole Church, just as it is at least a mistake to believe that nearly the whole Church would accept as Catholic truths all those grave errors.
.
No, Stubborn, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is also protected from error, and Catholics must believe what it teaches with the same level of faith as they would give to an ex cathedra papal definition.
This is the decree of Vatican 1 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm):
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
- which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
- and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
- whether by her solemn judgment
- or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
-
.
No, Stubborn, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is also protected from error, and Catholics must believe what it teaches with the same level of faith as they would give to an ex cathedra papal definition.
This is the decree of Vatican 1 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm):
100% absolutely and positively, totally agree. Just be glad that the popes and bishops are not the Church's Magisterium.
From an older post, I said.......
I am with Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter because to me, there is no better definition of what the Church's Magisterium is:
The Magisterium, or if you wish, the Church's Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is: "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."
-
The defined dogma promises divine protection whenever the pope defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals ex cathedra.
No, it does not JUST apply to that. It applies to the overall papal Magisterium. Yet another Old Catholic heretic masquerading as a Trad.
-
100% absolutely and positively, totally agree. Just be glad that the popes and bishops are not the Church's Magisterium.
You agree only because you redefine the term Magisterium. We've gone through this. It's like those who say they believe in "No salvation outside the Church" but then redefine Church.
-
This dispute isn't about infallibility in the strict sense, but about the indefectibility of the Church. We're not talking about a few lines in a Papal Encyclical that do not meet the notes of infallibility and could have been mistaken. We're talking about a new religion, with a new theological system, new ecclesiology, new moral system, and new non-Catholic form of worship, and bogus saints to match these. It is not possible for the Catholic Church to lose her marks and to become this abomination.
And that's the issue here. Those Catholics who become Traditional Catholics are by and large not theologians who can analyze the errors of Vatican II. They simply realize that they do not and cannot recognize this Conciliar abomination as the Holy Catholic Church. St. Pius X would not recognize it as the Church if he had been time-warped forward to today. This is not possible.
Both the arguments regarding the precise limits of infallibility in the strict sense, with some like Stubborn minimizing it so that the 99% of papal teaching that doesn't meet the notes of infallibility is subject to total corruption (precisely what the Prots claimed had happened and the Old Catholics likewise claimed), and then some SVs erring in the opposite extreme by pretending that the pope is a divine oracle whose every word is inspired, and where practically every book with am imprimatur must be considered infallible. I see the two extremes being played out constantly, but it's the WRONG battle. This isn't about the strict limits of infallibility, nor is it about papa haereticus depositus this or papa haereticus deponendus that, but about whether the Catholic Church can become this corrupt as a result of its official teaching and its public worship of God. That is so utterly blasphemous and heretical that I cannot say it strongly enough.
-
It all boils down to this...
1. The 'magisterium' (outside of the extraordinary use) has never been clearly defined or explained.
a. If we all knew where the infallible magisterium began and ended, then there would be no crisis in the Church because everyone could easily see that x or y was doctrine or novelty.
b. The Modernists knew this, and pushed the limits of such, (which God allowed), and so spread confusion.
2. Also, 'indefectibility' has never been fully explained, nor its limits.
a. If we all knew the limits which God would allow His enemies to attack the Church, then the crisis wouldn't be so shocking and stressful.
b. Just like the Apostles when Christ was arrested and crucified...they were not prepared for the depths of the crisis. Christ's promises seemed to have been in vain, but they were not.
c. Connected to the above, God has allowed the Modernists to push the limits of indefectibility, and confusion reigns.
A future, orthodox Pope/council will clear all this up and explain such doctrines in wonderous simplicity and (if we are alive), we'll all say, "Praise be to the Lord, it all finally makes sense."
-
2. Also, 'indefectibility' has never been fully explained, nor its limits.
It's been very adequately defined. If the Church loses its notes, it's no longer the Church and therefore it has defected.
So if the Church became corrupt now, why were the Prots wrong in saying that the Church had become corrupt back then? St. Pius X didn't condemn Modernism with the notes of infallibility. Maybe he was wrong, and V2 was a welcome correction. Pius IX didn't issue the Syllabus with the notes of infallibility. Maybe he was wrong and V2 again corrected his error. Maybe Gregory XVI and Pius XI's encyclicals that are always cited by Trads were wrong, and Vatican II corrected them. You basically turn the Magisterium into a joke, and turn yourselves into your own rule of faith. Ultimately it is YOU who decide what's Catholic and what isn't rather than the teaching authority of the Church.
You guys are pushing a blend of Protestantism, Old Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. You are incapable of citing a single teaching of the Magisterium or even of a pre-Vatican-II theologian who says it's possible for the Magisterium to become so corrupt as to justify severing communion with the Catholic hierarchy.
There's nothing complicated about this. I can and have posted a veritable wall of papal teaching about the integrity of the Church's Magisterium.
You guys just keep telling yourselves that you aren't basically Old Catholic heretics ... and you might come to believe it, but God knows the truth. It's really shameful how you throw the Holy Catholic Church under the bus to save this degenerate heretic Jorge Bergoglio, just so you can hang a "pope picture" up in the vestibule, and take comfort in some clown walking around Rome in a white cassock. Shameful and pathetic.
-
You agree only because you redefine the term Magisterium. We've gone through this. It's like those who say they believe in "No salvation outside the Church" but then redefine Church.
You're the one redefining what the Magisterium is. Here is your post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612) showing how the Church defines it, which is how we are bound to understand it - but you redefine it because you don't believe it.
-
It's been very adequately defined. If the Church loses its notes, it's no longer the Church and therefore it has defected.
Ok, define "notes". Which circles back to "what part of the magisterium is infallible?" And therein lies the issue.
So if the Church became corrupt now, why were the Prots wrong in saying that the Church had become corrupt back then? St. Pius X didn't condemn Modernism with the notes of infallibility. Maybe he was wrong, and V2 was a welcome correction. Pius IX didn't issue the Syllabus with the notes of infallibility. Maybe he was wrong and V2 again corrected his error. Maybe Gregory XVI and Pius XI's encyclicals that are always cited by Trads were wrong, and Vatican II corrected them. You basically turn the Magisterium into a joke, and turn yourselves into your own rule of faith. Ultimately it is YOU who decide what's Catholic and what isn't rather than the teaching authority of the Church.
Calm down. When you say "corrupt", how is that defined theologically? Again, it goes back to what part of the Magisterium is infallible and which part can err. If the part that can err, does err, then such is ALLOWED to corrupt. The infallible part can never be corrupt.
But you argue as if "no part" of the Magisterium (which definition, the Modernists expanded, in order to confuse) can be corrupted. Which is false. By definition, the fallible magisterium can become corrupted, because a fallible magisterium can err.
You're the one who keeps pushing the "Fenton-theory" of the infallible, non-infallible Magisterium. It's a stupid theory and he was pushing such to brainwash people into swallowing V2...
-
It all boils down to this...
1. The 'magisterium' (outside of the extraordinary use) has never been clearly defined or explained.
a. If we all knew where the infallible magisterium began and ended, then there would be no crisis in the Church because everyone could easily see that x or y was doctrine or novelty.
b. The Modernists knew this, and pushed the limits of such, (which God allowed), and so spread confusion.
It has been sufficiently defined by those popes in Lad's old post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612), which is to say defined enough to know that whatever it is, it enjoys permanent immunity from error therefore is altogether unable to ever be mistaken. This is very clearly stated by the popes in the link, this is what they are teaching us.
Because the Magisterium is simply the Church teaching us, it does not really matter whether we are talking about the Church's Ordinary Magisterium or the Extraordinary Magisterium because we are bound no less to either the OUM or the EM, because what we are bound to is Catholic truths, which, PPIX at V1 said that these truths are contained "in her ordinary and universal magisterium."
-
It all boils down to this...
1. The 'magisterium' (outside of the extraordinary use) has never been clearly defined or explained.
a. If we all knew where the infallible magisterium began and ended, then there would be no crisis in the Church because everyone could easily see that x or y was doctrine or novelty.
b. The Modernists knew this, and pushed the limits of such, (which God allowed), and so spread confusion.
I want to add that it should be noted that Lad and others make statements referring to a "corrupt magisterium" or a magisterium that "has gone of the rails, or a "non-infallible magisterium." All of these ideas serve only to confuse because a "non-infallible magisterium" is an altogether erroneous and misguided term that directly contradicts the Church's teachings in the above link.
Per the popes in the above link, there can no more be a "non-infallible magisterium" then there can be a "non-infallible dogma" - iow, there is no such a thing as a non-infallible magisterium. Whoever does not understand this needs to study and believe the papal teachings in the above link, which was supplied initially by Lad, solely for the purpose so he could contradict them, ultimately in order to remain firm in his efforts toward maintaining his sedeism.
But it is really not complicated at all once one believes what the popes teach, maybe that's too simple, I don't know.
-
there is no such a thing as a non-infallible magisterium.
This was true, in the past, since the term was only used to apply to authoritative subjects.
But in the 1700/1800s, theologians expanded the term and now it covers all areas of church docuмents. That’s why it’s confusing to use current terms. There’s little consistency between theologians.
-
Yes, the prodigal son exemplifies the matter in that just as he never ceased to be the father's son, Catholics never cease to be sons of holy mother the Church.
But this is more likened to the character of baptism. The son nevers stop being the son (a person never loses the marks on their soul) but he does go outside the house and has to return by his own volition.
No matter how much the father (mother church) eagerly desires to see him back, if he doesn't return how can he enter the house once more?
-
But this is more likened to the character of baptism. The son nevers stop being the son (a person never loses the marks on their soul) but he does go outside the house and has to return by his own volition.
No matter how much the father (mother church) eagerly desires to see him back, if he doesn't return how can he enter the house once more?
Stubborn can keep just saying this, but he's clinging to an opinion held by a number of theologians who can be counted on one hand, out of an extreme devotion to Father Wathen, whom he treats like his persona oracle (a substitute for the Magisterium).
St. Robert Bellarmine likens the issue to a brand on a sheep. If the sheep leaves the fold (runs away, is sold, whatever), the brand simply indicates that it USED TO belong to the fold.
I liken it to DNA. It's not just a weak metaphor that we liken the Church to a body. If my right arm were severed in an accident, it would continue to have my DNA, but it would no longer be part of my body. This severed limb would no longer be able to exercise any function. Some skilled surgeons might be able to re-attach the arm, just as a heretic could be rejoined to the Church, and because the limb still has my DNA, it won't be rejected by the body as if it were foreign / alien tissue.
-
But this is more likened to the character of baptism. The son nevers stop being the son (a person never loses the marks on their soul) but he does go outside the house and has to return by his own volition.
No matter how much the father (mother church) eagerly desires to see him back, if he doesn't return how can he enter the house once more?
The character of Baptism is imprinted on the soul of every person ever validly baptized, but as St. Thomas teaches, "...Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith..."
It is that faith that makes baptized adults, Catholic. Once they have that faith, they will be a Catholic in this life and in the next whether in heaven or hell, which will add to their shame if they end up in hell. It will be a part of their "worm that dieth not." IOW, it will be part of their eternal regret - because like all sinners, all he had to do to be absolved was go to confession - by his own volition. No different than you, me, and all other Catholics who go to confession when they need to - of our own volition. No different at all.
-
Stubborn can keep just saying this, but he's clinging to an opinion held by a number of theologians who can be counted on one hand, out of an extreme devotion to Father Wathen, whom he treats like his persona oracle (a substitute for the Magisterium).
St. Robert Bellarmine likens the issue to a brand on a sheep. If the sheep leaves the fold (runs away, is sold, whatever), the brand simply indicates that it USED TO belong to the fold.
I liken it to DNA. It's not just a weak metaphor that we liken the Church to a body. If my right arm were severed in an accident, it would continue to have my DNA, but it would no longer be part of my body. This severed limb would no longer be able to exercise any function. Some skilled surgeons might be able to re-attach the arm, just as a heretic could be rejoined to the Church, and because the limb still has my DNA, it won't be rejected by the body as if it were foreign / alien tissue.
Do you believe that Heresy is a mortal sin?
Do you believe that only Catholics are permitted to use the sacrament of Penance (and Extreme Unction).
Supposing you correctly answered yes to both questions, all you need to do now is accept the truth that all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin, including the mortal sin of heresy, are urged by the Church to use the sacrament of penance, and if they do are absolved from their mortal sins - and as you have stated in the past, God forgets those sins no matter how grievous they were.
If you correctly answered yes to both questions but still cannot accept the result of those answers I supplied below those questions, then you have trapped yourself in a self imposed conundrum, by your own volition.
-
Do you believe that Heresy is a mortal sin?
Do you believe that only Catholics are permitted to use the sacrament of Penance (and Extreme Unction).
Supposing you correctly answered yes to both questions, all you need to do now is accept the truth that all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin, including the mortal sin of heresy, are urged by the Church to use the sacrament of penance, and if they do are absolved from their mortal sins - and as you have stated in the past, God forgets those sins no matter how grievous they were.
If you correctly answered yes to both questions but still cannot accept the result of those answers I supplied below those questions, then you have trapped yourself in a self imposed conundrum, by your own volition.
I dunno, something just seems illogical/nonsensical. If someone is outside the church they are outside the church...
The character of Baptism is imprinted on the soul of every person ever validly baptized, but as St. Thomas teaches, "...Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith..."
It is that faith that makes baptized adults, Catholic. Once they have that faith, they will be a Catholic in this life and in the next whether in heaven or hell, which will add to their shame if they end up in hell. It will be a part of their "worm that dieth not." IOW, it will be part of their eternal regret - because like all sinners, all he had to do to be absolved was go to confession - by his own volition. No different than you, me, and all other Catholics who go to confession when they need to - of our own volition. No different at all.
Even here it's strange. You says that baptism without faith is not acceptable. That faith makes one Catholic. But baptism is the sacrament of faith...
It's the mark on their soul that will add to their pain. Regardless if they become catholic or not as adults.
And is there a difference between being Catholic and being a member of the church?
-
including the mortal sin of heresy, are urged by the Church to use the sacrament of penance
Yes and no. Sins of heresy cannot just be confessed and forgotten. There is a requirement for public abjuration of the error, since heresy is a public sin. Also, in "normal" times, priests would have to get the permission of the Bishop before absolving heretics of sin, to make sure the heretic fulfilled all the requirements to be one of the faithful again.
But, overall, I agree with your general principle that a heretic is still part of the Church, just an excommunicated member. This is different from a pagan or some unbaptized protestant, who has never been a member at all.
-
I dunno, something just seems illogical/nonsensical. If someone is outside the church they are outside the church...
That's right, 100% correct, and if the heretic was never Catholic, or if the agnostic, prot, Hindu, Jєω etc, was never Catholic, they are outside of the Church. One must first be a Catholic in order for them to always be Catholic.
When a Catholic loses his faith and becomes a heretic, he is not outside of the Church. He remains a Catholic, member of the Church on earth until death. And whatever else he does, whatever other sins he commits in this life, the Church urges him to and he has the opportunity of going to confession and being absolved of all his sins, including his sins of heresy until his last breath in the sacrament of Penance, and if repentant in his last agony he may also receive the Last Rites - which means he can receive the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction - and be saved. We know the Church permits these sacraments only to Catholics, to members of the Church.
It only seems illogical/nonsensical until you accept that heresy, schism and apostacy are sins, or mortal sins, and that all sins of whatever type and however grave can be forgiven in the sacrament of penance, which is a sacrament only for Catholics. So provided that one was once a Catholic, having the opportunity to make use of these sacraments, they remain a Catholic. It is really very simple. They are of course typically not Catholic in their actions, words or deeds, but Catholic none the less - and in dire need of confession.
Even Fred and Bob knew and embraced this truth. However, once they chose to go sede, this truth was among the first to go because it had to be among the first to go. Even tho they twist this truth, and get others to twist this truth, this something that must be done in order to make it mean something contrary so as to use as a support for their sede narrative.
This is only one example of why DL correctly stated that there is more to sedeism than simply a vacant chair.
-
Even here it's strange. You says that baptism without faith is not acceptable. That faith makes one Catholic. But baptism is the sacrament of faith...
It's the mark on their soul that will add to their pain. Regardless if they become catholic or not as adults.
And is there a difference between being Catholic and being a member of the church?
I quoted St. Thomas Aquinas who says baptism without the faith is useless. Remember, many (nearly all?) baptized Catholics end up in hell too, it only takes one mortal sin. Doesn't matter which mortal sin - and heresy can be and lead to mortal sin. Whatever mortal sin(s) we die with are the sins we will eternally regret. That's the worm that dieth not, which St. Thomas says is the primary punishment in hell, or the punishment that will give us the most suffering.
Remember also that to *not* have the Catholic faith is a sin (John 16:9) in and of itself, to die in this sin alone merits hell, this what the dogma EENS teaches. This explains why to be baptized without the Catholic faith is useless. Fr. Wathen said it something like, "being baptized without the Catholic faith is totally useless, it's like having an owners manual for a car without the car."
Trent's catechism puts it like this: "...Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised..."
Note the underlined, it says "they belong to her." They belong to her only as deserters yes, but the catechism does not say they no longer belong to her, or are no longer members, it says that they still belong to her.
-
Yes and no. Sins of heresy cannot just be confessed and forgotten. There is a requirement for public abjuration of the error, since heresy is a public sin. Also, in "normal" times, priests would have to get the permission of the Bishop before absolving heretics of sin, to make sure the heretic fulfilled all the requirements to be one of the faithful again.
But, overall, I agree with your general principle that a heretic is still part of the Church, just an excommunicated member. This is different from a pagan or some unbaptized protestant, who has never been a member at all.
This is not true Pax, Canon Law states a public abjuration is required only for adult converts prior to baptism, or if the pope or bishop requires it, or if the confessor requires it, or if public abjuration is officially attached to that censure, other than that the norm is no public abjuration. I posted the applicable Canon Law a few years ago, it's out there if someone wants to find it.
Remember, there are reasons for those provisions in this law. I do not know but perhaps one reason for this is likely that a blanket rule of public abjuration in all cases across the board might have the potential of doing more harm than good. Another reason is that the lifting of all excommunications is in the traditional formula of absolution that the priest already says in confession. The priest through the Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin.
-
This is not true Pax, Canon Law states a public abjuration is required only for adult converts prior to baptism, or if the pope or bishop requires it, or if the confessor requires it, or if public abjuration is officially attached to that censure, other than that the norm is no public abjuration. I posted the applicable Canon Law a few years ago, it's out there if someone wants to find it.
I was referring to extreme cases of heresy, where a person was excommunicated (i.e. Martin Luther or any current Modernist). Their crimes are very great, and the public scandal they have caused is so extreme; they could not just walk into a confession and reverse all of that. Imagine if Joe Biden wanted to become a Traditionalist. If we had a Trad pope/bishops, they would require some public abjuration because his errors were so public and wide-spread.
-
I was referring to extreme cases of heresy, where a person was excommunicated (i.e. Martin Luther or any current Modernist). Their crimes are very great, and the public scandal they have caused is so extreme; they could not just walk into a confession and reverse all of that. Imagine if Joe Biden wanted to become a Traditionalist. If we had a Trad pope/bishops, they would require some public abjuration because his errors were so public and wide-spread.
Ah ok, I see. Makes sense of course.
-
I quoted St. Thomas Aquinas who says baptism without the faith is useless. Remember, many (nearly all?) baptized Catholics end up in hell too, it only takes one mortal sin. Doesn't matter which mortal sin - and heresy can be and lead to mortal sin. Whatever mortal sin(s) we die with are the sins we will eternally regret. That's the worm that dieth not, which St. Thomas says is the primary punishment in hell, or the punishment that will give us the most suffering.
Remember also that to *not* have the Catholic faith is a sin (John 16:9) in and of itself, to die in this sin alone merits hell, this what the dogma EENS teaches. This explains why to be baptized without the Catholic faith is useless. Fr. Wathen said it something like, "being baptized without the Catholic faith is totally useless, it's like having an owners manual for a car without the car."
Trent's catechism puts it like this: "...Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised..."
Note the underlined, it says "they belong to her." They belong to her only as deserters yes, but the catechism does not say they no longer belong to her, or are no longer members, it says that they still belong to her.
*Only as deserters belong to an army.*
The deserters are no longer in the army, the army still has jurisdiction over them.