Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on April 05, 2023, 10:53:46 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1TQdT8idgA
I know they are a controversial group and I don't agree with them on everything, but I do appreciate many of their more 'educational' videos. There is honestly no other traditional Catholics (or groups) who make useful and easy to digest content, though sometimes there can be poison in them.
"in many of those circles, you can just simply cite papal teaching on outside the church there is no salvation and they will react by saying quote "feeneyite", a very inaccurate term"
It's true. Whether you are speaking to these 'trad' priests or the laypeople it's always the same response. "Feeneyite" or misunderstanding fallible teachings of Saints to deny EENS.
-
They aren't when listening to. They are deceptive.
-
They aren't when listening to. They are deceptive.
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
They quote mine. They will even quote sources that explicitly teach against them in a way that makes it appear that the source supports them. You can't really trust anything they say, because they are very good at lying by omission and manipulating perception.
-
They quote mine. They will even quote sources that explicitly teach against them in a way that makes it appear that the source supports them. You can't really trust anything they say, because they are very good at lying by omission and manipulating perception.
You seem a bit incoherent here, first with your original post and then what is: "They quote mine."?
This is completely untrue. Some of their argument are, IMO, faulty, but they don't distort anything, certainly not on purpose (vs. misreading or misinterpreting something). It's one thing to misinterpret something and quite another to distort the sources and lie about them. That's bording on slander to make that assertion without evidence.
To me, "deceptive" is when modern-day "Trads" hold that the dogma EENS means the opposite of what it says and that you're a heretic if you actually believe what it says and not the opposite of what it says.
-
Years ago I was reading something from them (this was before youtube--or, at least, before they were posting on youtube) and they quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas to "prove" someone's heresy. It was so long ago, I don't remember the subject or the subject of their wrath. Since I have a copy of the Summa, I looked it up--at least they provided the citation. I don't think they expected people to look up the citation to see the context and full explanation from St. Thomas. It turned out that they were quoting the Objection, that is, part of the explanation that St. Thomas then answered to prove it wrong. I stopped paying much attention to them after that.
-
You seem a bit incoherent here, first with your original post and then what is: "They quote mine."?
This is completely untrue. Some of their argument are, IMO, faulty, but they don't distort anything, certainly not on purpose (vs. misreading or misinterpreting something). It's one thing to misinterpret something and quite another to distort the sources and lie about them. That's bording on slander to make that assertion without evidence.
To me, "deceptive" is when modern-day "Trads" hold that the dogma EENS means the opposite of what it says and that you're a heretic if you actually believe what it says and not the opposite of what it says.
Definitely not slander because they do it. Griff Ruby has a big article on his site showing their manipulative uses of sources, for starters. I confirmed it on my own. They take things out of context.
They do lie and distort sources. You can be their fan, doesn't change the facts.
And as far as trads and EENS, 2 wrongs don't make a right so that doesn't have any bearing on the Dimonds anyway.
-
Definitely not slander because they do it.
Absolutely slander. Ruby is about as biased a source as you can get, a dogmatic BoDer, buddies with our own Lover of Heresy.
I've never seen any intentional distortion on their part. Period. I've seen misinterpretation and reading things into a source that weren't necessarily there, but then I see more of that on the BoDers side. Misinterpretation of something is not the same thing as your slanderous accusation of deception and lying.
-
They do lie and distort sources. You can be their fan, doesn't change the facts.
No, they do not "lie" and "deceive" and DELIBERATELY distort sources. That's a slander you need to retract. As for your claim that I am a "fan", I've been directly attached by the Dimond Brothers by e-mail. I'm only a fan of truth, and your accusations of lying, deception, and deliberate distortion are slanderous.
-
Years ago I was reading something from them (this was before youtube--or, at least, before they were posting on youtube) and they quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas to "prove" someone's heresy. It was so long ago, I don't remember the subject or the subject of their wrath. Since I have a copy of the Summa, I looked it up--at least they provided the citation. I don't think they expected people to look up the citation to see the context and full explanation from St. Thomas. It turned out that they were quoting the Objection, that is, part of the explanation that St. Thomas then answered to prove it wrong. I stopped paying much attention to them after that.
There's a huge difference between a mistake and a lie or distortion or deliberate deception. Simply because someone makes a mistake, I won't stop paying attention. Father Cekada has made several egregious mistakes on various issues, and yet I'll still read what he writes, because he often makes good points also. To ignore people simply because they make a mistake is childish and speaks to someone who has already made up his mind about an issue or else is engaging in childish vindictiveness. Father Cekada has ridiculed me publicly, but I still praise the good work he's done. You might be more likely to find the truth if you're actually open to it in the first place. Archbishop Lefebvre has made mistakes. Bishop Williamson has made mistakes, and yet I still listen to everything he writes. We're all human, and I know of no Trad writer who's infallible and error-free. But there's a huge chasm between being mistaken on something and deliberate lying, distortion, and deception. Now, there can be a distortion that's caused by wanting to see something in a text that isn't there, but it's still not a conscious or deliberate thing for most people. On the other hand, when someone uses ellipses where the excised portion completely undermines what they claim the passage proves (like Father Laisney about BoD or Bishop Kelly arguing the invalidity of the +Thuc line), that's a sign of dishonesty, distortion, and deception.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1TQdT8idgA
There's nothing too new in this video. It's just another passage from a Pope reaffirming EENS dogma, and then going after the Trads and Trad groups who don't accept EENS (this isn't even about BoD per se), such as SSPX, CMRI, Bishop Sanborn, et al., which they've done several times in other videos.
-
On the other hand, when someone uses ellipses where the excised portion completely undermines what they claim the passage proves (like Father Laisney about BoD or Bishop Kelly arguing the invalidity of the +Thuc line), that's a sign of dishonesty, distortion, and deception.
That's exactly what the Dimonds do.
-
They quote mine. They will even quote sources that explicitly teach against them in a way that makes it appear that the source supports them. You can't really trust anything they say, because they are very good at lying by omission and manipulating perception.
Well said.
-
That's exactly what the Dimonds do.
No they don't. You're just going to double down on your slander. Shame on you.
-
I agree with you Ladislaus, I have read and watched many of the Dimonds articles and videos and they have a great record for trying to explain the Catholic faith in an easy to understand way and with much docuмentation.
They have had some learning curve and perhaps initially were a bit acidic in their responses, but like us all have mellowed with age and are a very good source for Catholic material.
I personally have yet to find any evidence of them trying to purposefully distort the truth. I don’t have a theological background but I usually understand the arguments that they are making and they are very logical.
-
I agree with you Ladislaus, I have read and watched many of the Dimonds articles and videos and they have a great record for trying to explain the Catholic faith in an easy to understand way and with much docuмentation.
They have had some learning curve and perhaps initially were a bit acidic in their responses, but like us all have mellowed with age and are a very good source for Catholic material.
I personally have yet to find any evidence of them trying to purposefully distort the truth. I don’t have a theological background but I usually understand the arguments that they are making and they are very logical.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul7str.htm
-
Absolutely slander. Ruby is about as biased a source as you can get, a dogmatic BoDer, buddies with our own Lover of Heresy.
I've never seen any intentional distortion on their part. Period. I've seen misinterpretation and reading things into a source that weren't necessarily there, but then I see more of that on the BoDers side. Misinterpretation of something is not the same thing as your slanderous accusation of deception and lying.
All that bluster yet I bet you never read a single word he wrote.
-
No, they do not "lie" and "deceive" and DELIBERATELY distort sources. That's a slander you need to retract. As for your claim that I am a "fan", I've been directly attached by the Dimond Brothers by e-mail. I'm only a fan of truth, and your accusations of lying, deception, and deliberate distortion are slanderous.
cRiTiCiSm Of PeOpLe I aGrEe WiTh Is SlAnDeR!
-
cRiTiCiSm Of PeOpLe I aGrEe WiTh Is SlAnDeR!
I was enjoying the discussion on this thread but this thing of uppercase/lowercase is cringe and speaks of "reddit" which is not a good thing.
Whenever I see people use this it lowers my regard of their opinion, because it's honestly 'gαy' and 'cringe'.
-
I was enjoying the discussion on this thread but this thing of uppercase/lowercase is cringe and speaks of "reddit" which is not a good thing.
Whenever I see people use this it lowers my regard of their opinion, because it's honestly 'gαy' and 'cringe'.
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
To explain. Basically this usage of 'caps' comes from reddit where it is mainly used to mock or deride or dismiss something without actually addressing the point and to appeal to "group think" for upvotes.
It is similar to when people say stuff like "people can worship whomever they like" or supporting gαys/trans or "vaccines are safe and effective" or "that's just a conspiracy" or support of any type of sins. These effectively speak to me as ignorance in the matter and them just regurgitating the "common/mainstream" opinion. You might hear it referred to as "NPC behaviour" but it really just shows the lack of one's own belief (since they just repeat the common talking point).
-
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
To explain. Basically this usage of 'caps' comes from reddit where it is mainly used to mock or deride or dismiss something without actually addressing the point and to appeal to "group think" for upvotes.
It is similar to when people say stuff like "people can worship whomever they like" or supporting gαys/trans or "vaccines are safe and effective" or "that's just a conspiracy" or support of any type of sins. These effectively speak to me as ignorance in the matter and them just regurgitating the "common/mainstream" opinion. You might hear it referred to as "NPC behaviour" but it really just shows the lack of one's own belief (since they just repeat the common talking point).
It expresses sarcasm. I didn't get it from Reddit. I saw it off telegram when I was on it.
You seem to have the same attitude as the Dimonds.
-
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
To explain. Basically this usage of 'caps' comes from reddit where it is mainly used to mock or deride or dismiss something without actually addressing the point and to appeal to "group think" for upvotes.
It is similar to when people say stuff like "people can worship whomever they like" or supporting gαys/trans or "vaccines are safe and effective" or "that's just a conspiracy" or support of any type of sins. These effectively speak to me as ignorance in the matter and them just regurgitating the "common/mainstream" opinion. You might hear it referred to as "NPC behaviour" but it really just shows the lack of one's own belief (since they just repeat the common talking point).
You want to insult me yet I would wager you didn't even read the link I posted showing exactly how and where the Dimonds quote sources in deceptive and/or manipulative ways.
-
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
To explain. Basically this usage of 'caps' comes from reddit where it is mainly used to mock or deride or dismiss something without actually addressing the point and to appeal to "group think" for upvotes.
It is similar to when people say stuff like "people can worship whomever they like" or supporting gαys/trans or "vaccines are safe and effective" or "that's just a conspiracy" or support of any type of sins. These effectively speak to me as ignorance in the matter and them just regurgitating the "common/mainstream" opinion. You might hear it referred to as "NPC behaviour" but it really just shows the lack of one's own belief (since they just repeat the common talking point).
Regarding talking points. In 'Traditional Catholic land' it's usually Fr Feeney's dubious "excommunication" letter that is often used to detract from EENS and promote BoD. But actually looking at the content of the letter as well of the context and events that come after it becomes apparent that the their is an agenda against Feeney (really aganst Church Dogma of EENS) and when you look closely at the details these things just mentioned in fact support EENS and water baptism.
These was also a political involvement in this issue as use Merry points out in this excellent post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg877581/#msg877581
-
It expresses sarcasm. I didn't get it from Reddit. I saw it off telegram when I was on it.
You seem to have the same attitude as the Dimonds.
It originates from reddit (from what I can remember) and it used to detract/deride/dismiss. (usually by sarcasm)
You want to insult me yet I would wager you didn't even read the link I posted showing exactly how and where the Dimonds quote sources in deceptive and/or manipulative ways.
I don't mean to insult you, I want to point out how mixed caps and lowercase is often used and by what groups it came from. The link you posted is quite long, I have yet to read it. Is there any specific examples that stand out?
-
Regarding talking points. In 'Traditional Catholic land' it's usually Fr Feeney's dubious "excommunication" letter that is often used to detract from EENS and promote BoD. But actually looking at the content of the letter as well of the context and events that come after it becomes apparent that the their is an agenda against Feeney (really aganst Church Dogma of EENS) and when you look closely at the details these things just mentioned in fact support EENS and water baptism.
These was also a political involvement in this issue as use Merry points out in this excellent post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/is-there-really-no-anti-bod-congregation/msg877581/#msg877581
I used to be all about MHFM, but I also continued investigating on my own. At first it was little things that didn't quite add up, and eventually it all began to compound.
The turning point for me was seeing that Pius XII taught BoD in something he published in the Acta. It wasn't invincible ignorance BoD which is false, but it's the actual true BoD, which is for believers that haven't managed to have been physically baptized without any guilt. They didn't neglect or avoid it. If BoD wasn't a thing, the Church would never delay baptism under any circuмstances; the Church isn't cruel or uncaring.
I began seeing inconsistencies in what the Dimonds would teach and some of the sources they would quote. When read in context, it didn't always quite line up with their interpretation. Then I stumbled upon Griff Ruby's articles and he systematically showed their manipulative use of sources. I would look up the sources to confirm what Griff was saying, since I couldn't simply trust him on his word, either. Eventually I realized that the Dimonds are simply a cult. I don't know what their intentions are, but I am not inclined to believe they have particularly good intentions.
You can call me a redditor or cringe or an NPC, but I have told you the truth, it's up to you if you want to investigate things passed your comfort zone. Also that sarcasm wasn't directed at you. Lad and I don't particularly like each other, though I think I dislike him more than he does me.
-
The link you posted is quite long, I have yet to read it. Is there any specific examples that stand out?
Skipping to the end of the link,
Only the first part of this paragraph pertains to those who are outside the Church (and hence required to seek baptism), and the only condition it places upon them is to be "joined to the Church before the end of their lives." Since this does not in any manner address what it takes to be "joined to the Church" it in no way excludes whatever means God may elect to use in some specific case where water baptism was not obtainable but nevertheless sought.
So, what all this means is that the above quotations can therefore be eliminated as valid prooftexts by which some use to deny BOB/BOD. It has to be clear that none of the above quotes even address BOB/BOD, let alone condemn it, for indeed if any of the above could have been so taken, how is it that so many popes, saints, doctors, fathers, and other formal doctrinal sources could ever possibly ignored these in their affirmation of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire?
This seems like an non sequitur. A person who is not baptised can not be considered a member of the faithful as they don't have the mark on their soul. None of the quotes needs to address BoD/BoB because BoD/BoB is emotional speculation.
it in no way excludes whatever means God may elect to use in some specific case where water baptism was not obtainable but nevertheless sought.
This seems to be circular reasoning. Assuming BoD means that we can't be sure who died inside or outside the Church and as a consequence leads to the deny of "Outside the Church there is no salvation".
In this case the author is using BoD as a cope to say even if someone dies outside the Church they might really be inside the Church because God might break His own decree on baptism (John 3:5). Then the author appeals to the fallible authority of Saints and doctors of the Church that support Bod (though a different version from mainstream BoD) but also ignores the fallible authority of Saints and doctors who deny BoD. This cherry picking is always done by BoD supporters.
-
I used to be all about MHFM, but I also continued investigating on my own. At first it was little things that didn't quite add up, and eventually it all began to compound.
The turning point for me was seeing that Pius XII taught BoD in something he published in the Acta. It wasn't invincible ignorance BoD which is false, but it's the actual true BoD, which is for believers that haven't managed to have been physically baptized without any guilt. They didn't neglect or avoid it. If BoD wasn't a thing, the Church would never delay baptism under any circuмstances; the Church isn't cruel or uncaring.
I began seeing inconsistencies in what the Dimonds would teach and some of the sources they would quote. When read in context, it didn't always quite line up with their interpretation. Then I stumbled upon Griff Ruby's articles and he systematically showed their manipulative use of sources. I would look up the sources to confirm what Griff was saying, since I couldn't simply trust him on his word, either. Eventually I realized that the Dimonds are simply a cult. I don't know what their intentions are, but I am not inclined to believe they have particularly good intentions.
Pius XII didn't teach BoD. Please provide a source.
You can call me a redditor or cringe or an NPC, but I have told you the truth, it's up to you if you want to investigate things passed your comfort zone. Also that sarcasm wasn't directed at you. Lad and I don't particularly like each other, though I think I dislike him more than he does me.
Re-read what I wrote, I wasn't specifically calling you a redditor nor an NPC.
-
Skipping to the end of the link,
This seems like an non sequitur. A person who is not baptised can not be considered a member of the faithful as they don't have the mark on their soul. None of the quotes needs to address BoD/BoB because BoD/BoB is emotional speculation.
This. seems to be circular reasoning. Assuming BoD means that we can't be sure who died inside or outside the Church and as a consequence leads to the deny of "Outside the Church there is no salvation".
In this case the author is using BoD as a cope to say even if someone dies outside the Church they might really be inside the Church because God might break His own decree on baptism (John 3:5). Then the author appeals to the fallible authority of Saints and doctors of the Church that support Bod (though a different version from mainstream BoD) but also ignores the fallible authority of Saints and doctors who deny BoD. This cherry picking is always done by BoD supporters.
Just read it when you have time. BoD or not, he shows how deceptive the Dimonds are. That is my point in posting that link. I know where I stand on BoD, and I'm not a priest so it's not really my job to convince others they are in error. My only job is to tell them that they are in error. I don't know anybody's internal dispositions but I know that someone can fall for the Dimonds teachings and still have a genuine desire for God and can keep the Faith despite that one error because I was that person. I was not obstinate because I didn't know any better, and realized and rejected my error when I knew better. Are you obstinate or do you simply genuinely not know any better? I don't know. Only you and God know that, it's not for me to judge.
Again, the clarify, that doesn't absolve the Dimonds' deceptive tactics, irrespective of the truth of their position on BoD. Someone can use lies in service of the truth, but those lies are still lies.
-
Skipping to the end of the link,
"But look at what a serious implication this would say regarding the Church over the past however many centuries! If their claims against Baptism of Blood and of Desire (hereinafter to be shortened to the commonly used BOB/BOD) constituted the real Catholic doctrine, then the Church's popes and bishops have all been heretics (or at least holding to a very serious error) for centuries at least, or even from the very beginning. How can one posit an authoritative and infallible hierarchy of the Church without also claiming that it has been wrong about this matter for practically as long as the question seems to have come up specifically?"
Ok already a huge problem at the very beginning of the article. The author is assuming BoD is a doctrine when it's not simply because many theologians held the position (though modern BoD is different from what they held and the nuance is very important).
This also misrepresents mhfm's position. They don't called the Popes, Saints and doctors heretics but they do call modern holders of BoD heretics even though there is an important nuance which they don't always distinguish in their videos calling modern supporters heretics. Because while most modern BoD supports hold the heretical version not all of them do so it is wrong to blanket them "all" as heretics. But to say they called the older Popes, Saints and doctors heretics is incorrect.
-
Pius XII didn't teach BoD. Please provide a source.
Re-read what I wrote, I wasn't specifically calling you a redditor nor an NPC.
Ok.
He taught it in his Allocution to Italian Mid Wives, which was later published in the Acta.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965
(I'm not R&R, ewtn is simply the first site with that docuмent to pop up on google)
-
Ok.
He taught it in his Allocution to Italian Mid Wives, which was later published in the Acta.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965
(I'm not R&R, ewtn is simply the first site with that docuмent to pop up on google)
I stand corrected in that Pius 12th taught BoD. Though I will point out this docuмent is not infallible. So while he erroneously taught BoD it is not the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Pius 12th also teaches in
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
22. 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. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
-
Ok already a huge problem at the very beginning of the article. The author is assuming BoD is a doctrine when it's not simply because many theologians held the position (though modern BoD is different from what they held and the nuance is very important).
This also misrepresents mhfm's position. They don't called the Popes, Saints and doctors heretics but they do call modern holders of BoD heretics even though there is an important nuance which they don't always distinguish in their videos calling modern supporters heretics. Because while most modern BoD supports hold the heretical version not all of them do so it is wrong to blanket them "all" as heretics. But to say they called the older Popes, Saints and doctors heretics is incorrect.
I would advise reading the whole series of articles in relation to the Dimonds and BoD. Reading only one or 2 chunks isn't gonna mean much.
And yes the modern kind of BoD we see more commonly today *can* be heretical. But as you say they don't all, and it's a matter of nuance as you say. Liberals abuse the concept of invincible ignorance and combine it with BoD for universal, automatic salvation. Then you have the position as held by like the SSPX or Bishop Sanborn. *if* a practitioner of another religion is saved, it's because of his genuine invincible ignorance and true good will and perfect contrition. Of course, a pope already taught that nobody could really know where invincible ignorance lies and that it's ultimately unlawful to even bother speculating in too much specificity. So while technically that is true, to bring it up is irrelevant as only God would know something like that. Invincible ignorance doesn't save, but it prevents someone like say Cornelius the Centurion, who is genuinely good willed and genuinely desires God from being damned *soley* on account of not being able to believe things he could not know due to circuмstances beyond his control. But again these are speculations that lie well behind human capacity. This is why it was declared unlawful to speculated about. These kinds of speculations do not make one a heretic, because technically speaking it is true even if it only ever happened one time in all of history, but they are unprofitable to speak about because it lies well beyond what has been revealed to us.
That speculation is different from the true BoD actually taught by the Church, which is BoD for catechumens that did not neglect or willfully delay baptism. Adding invincible ignorance simply complicates things and renders the discussion unprofitable.
-
I stand corrected in that Pius 12th taught BoD. Though I will point out this docuмent is not infallible. So while he erroneously taught BoD it is not the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Pius 12th also teaches in
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
22. 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. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
We cannot disregard what a pope teaches because it isn't covered by infallibility. That was actually condemned.
Also yes only those who are baptized are a part of the Church. This applies because if a catechumen cannot receive baptism before death, as long as he did not neglect baptism when he has the opportunity or avoid baptism, than his earnest desire for baptism would suffice in God's eyes. His soul would be marked extraordinarily (the ordinary means being normal water baptism), thus becoming a member of the Mystical Body before death and a part of the Church Triumphant or Penitent after death.
-
We cannot disregard what a pope teaches because it isn't covered by infallibility. That was actually condemned.
Also yes only those who are baptized are a part of the Church. This applies because if a catechumen cannot receive baptism before death, as long as he did not neglect baptism when he has the opportunity or avoid baptism, than his earnest desire for baptism would suffice in God's eyes. His soul would be marked extraordinarily (the ordinary means being normal water baptism), thus becoming a member of the Mystical Body before death and a part of the Church Triumphant or Penitent after death.
If a Pope fallibly teaches a contradiction then we shouldn't put 'weight' on that statement when there are plenty of other infallible quotes that teach EENS and the need for baptism.
I disagree with BoD. If someone dies without baptism then they are not among the elect, I don't believe that God is limited by 'impossibility' ("For nothing will be impossible with God.") but God is also not a liar. If God says one must be born again of water and spirit then He won't break His own rules but will provide baptism when/as He wills.
There is also the problem with BoD in regards to sins. If someone dies with BoD then one would assume they would automatically get to heaven, but even among Christians (Catholics), few are saved. Also if someone dies with BoD and comes back to life can they receive the Eucharist?
-
I would advise reading the whole series of articles in relation to the Dimonds and BoD. Reading only one or 2 chunks isn't gonna mean much.
And yes the modern kind of BoD we see more commonly today *can* be heretical. But as you say they don't all, and it's a matter of nuance as you say. Liberals abuse the concept of invincible ignorance and combine it with BoD for universal, automatic salvation. Then you have the position as held by like the SSPX or Bishop Sanborn. *if* a practitioner of another religion is saved, it's because of his genuine invincible ignorance and true good will and perfect contrition. Of course, a pope already taught that nobody could really know where invincible ignorance lies and that it's ultimately unlawful to even bother speculating in too much specificity. So while technically that is true, to bring it up is irrelevant as only God would know something like that. Invincible ignorance doesn't save, but it prevents someone like say Cornelius the Centurion, who is genuinely good willed and genuinely desires God from being damned *soley* on account of not being able to believe things he could not know due to circuмstances beyond his control. But again these are speculations that lie well behind human capacity. This is why it was declared unlawful to speculated about. These kinds of speculations do not make one a heretic, because technically speaking it is true even if it only ever happened one time in all of history, but they are unprofitable to speak about because it lies well beyond what has been revealed to us.
That speculation is different from the true BoD actually taught by the Church, which is BoD for catechumens that did not neglect or willfully delay baptism. Adding invincible ignorance simply complicates things and renders the discussion unprofitable.
I would say the modern kind *is* heretical, only the old kind promoted by the Saints as non-heretical erroneous speculation. The modern kind is not the same as the old kind. Most people today do not hold the old kind but the modern.
Indeed invincible ignorance doesn't save, but one is condemned not for ignorance but for their other sins. The 'true BoD' is speculation and has never been clearly and properly defined by the Church.
Also BoB is a 'meme'. There is the 'potential' for BoD as speculated by the theologians but BoB has no such opportunity.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,”
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
"even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ". This refutes Baptism of Blood.
-
Hey Cornelius, I read G. Ruby’s article. While I agree that the Dimonds removed some clarifying information within the eclipses, in the first example he gives, that was only a single example. This was in one of their early works, so I would cut them some slack.
I think the later snips of papal docuмents that were supposed to be read with a given interpretation, wasn’t always the most logical interpretation. It isn’t clear why he came to the conclusions that he did regarding these interpretations.
I think the meaning of the passages are more logical with those interpretations that the Dimonds give them. I will have to reread the article again later and see if I can “get” his thoughts better.
Anyway, thanks for the article.
-
While I agree that the Dimonds removed some clarifying information within the eclipses, in the first example he gives, that was only a single example.
I followed this thread a little more because of the word "eclipses" here. I thought it might be from astronomy.
Duns Scotus discussed a little how "the Moon is frequently eclipsed", but he doesn't go further and describe/define which way it goes around the Earth and in what time. I guess he thought everybody already knew and he didn't need to mention it.
As far as the Dimonds go, I appreciate what I've seen and learned from them. There may be some mistakes but they seem to have a sincere interest in the integrity of the faith, even as they embarrass certain people. In my opinion though, there is a fundamental and profound distinction between moral knowledge with moral adherence to doctrine and then metaphysical certainty in metaphysical knowledge of the "great beyond" and the particular circuмstances of the "great beyond". I think people on this side are left a little more myopic or in the dark than they sometimes want to admit.
-
I would advise reading the whole series of articles in relation to the Dimonds and BoD. Reading only one or 2 chunks isn't gonna mean much.
What's crazy, you are going from one false prophet (Dimonds), to another (Ruby).
-
What's crazy, you are going from one false prophet (Dimonds), to another (Ruby).
How so? I don't know much about him outside of the Dimond issue. I listened to an interview he had on Catholic family podcast and I am skeptical of some of his ideas but I'm open to him. He certainly doesn't anathematize people that don't agree with him like Dimond.
-
I've never seen any intentional distortion on their part. Period. I've seen misinterpretation and reading things into a source that weren't necessarily there, but then I see more of that on the BoDers side. Misinterpretation of something is not the same thing as your slanderous accusation of deception and lying.
It looks like TKGS provides an example above. However, I am of the thinking that they should be given an opportunity to explain why they wrote what they wrote (as with any of us). They are still alive, so they could. Now, if they choose not to explain it or ignore it, then I think it would be fair to make the conclusion that the "mistake" was deliberate.
Having said that, I am grateful to the DB's for being the first ones to open our eyes. But, just as with any other internet personality (especially those that are not true Catholic clergy with formal Catholic training), we must be cautious.
-
It looks like TKGS provides an example above. However, I am of the thinking that they should be given an opportunity to explain why they wrote what they wrote (as with any of us). They are still alive, so they could. Now, if they choose not to explain it or ignore it, then I think it would be fair to make the conclusion that the "mistake" was deliberate.
Having said that, I am grateful to the DB's for being the first ones to open our eyes. But, just as with any other internet personality (especially those that are not true Catholic clergy with formal Catholic training), we must be cautious.
It's been years since Griff's series on them. They have never mentioned him as far as I know.
-
How so? I don't know much about him outside of the Dimond issue. I listened to an interview he had on Catholic family podcast and I am skeptical of some of his ideas but I'm open to him. He certainly doesn't anathematize people that don't agree with him like Dimond.
I started to explain, but honestly, you, imo, are progressing the way you're supposed to in this crisis - you keep searching and seeking for the truth as you're doing, and you will most assuredly find it.
The issue is not a BOD per se, because unless the whole theory is interpreted, re-interpreted, explained and debated, there is no possible way one would be able to learn or get a BOD out of any official docuмents of the Church because the term is nowhere to be found. This fact in and of itself condemns the idea of a BOD as nothing more than an idea, or a theological speculation.
The issue, IMO, is that BODers wholly and fully, and absolutely reject the indisputable fact that a BOD is contrary to so many of the Church's other clear, infallible and de fide teachings and doctrines.
For instance, can you name even one instance, just name one, where God, Who Personally mandated it's necessity for salvation, would not or could not provide the sacrament to one who sincerely desires it? Of course you can't, because if you did, you would be going contrary to the Doctrine of Divine Providence (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/divine-providence/). That's only one doctrine, there are many other doctrines one needs to reject in order for a BOD make it.
From a previous post, I said:
I like how Fr. Wathen put it in a sermon about NO heretics, had nothing to do with a BOD but I like the way he puts 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...""
-
“I followed this thread a little more because of the word "eclipses" here. I thought it might be from astronomy.” Haha Sorry to disappoint you Donachie. I don’t have the best eyesight and I have a phone that autocorrects randomly. 🙃
-
This is very succinct and true Stubborn:
"...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..."
I like Father Wathen too.