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.

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'.

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).

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

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.

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,

"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.