CathInfo.com

So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks?  Wise choice.

At least they adhere to Church magesteriums teaching and dogmatic definitions...[/quote]

Maybe they do, and maybe they do not.  The question is, "Do they believe them as the Church teaches them, or according to their own 'lights'?"

...Whats your opinion on this? Should we not adhere to Church dogmatic definitions? If so, why then not learn from most holy family, when they teach according to the Church teachings?

OF COURSE we should adhere to the dogmatic definitions - and to ALL Church teaching according to the sense in which she teaches it, NOT our own.

MHFM has ZERO business teaching anyone about anything.  They are frauds in every sense of the term.

Learning about what the Church actually teaches through frauds like the Dimonds is like looking at a picture through a lens that distorts everything - not wise if we want to see clearly.  Godspeed.

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: ProphecyFilm.com

What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is...

So, your magister is a group of kleptomaniac non-monks?  Wise choice.

At least they adhere to Church magesteriums teaching and dogmatic definitions. Many of traditional catholics either completely deny the dogmatic definitions or give them other meanings besides from what they actually say.

So do you!  So do the Dimonds!

You and they both deny the Vatican Council and Florence.

You and they both believe that a pope can teach heresy in his fallible capacity, essentially equating the dogma of infallibility with protecting a pope from uttering heresy while binding the whole Church.  It is so much more than that.  It means that whatever they utter ex cathedra is completely true, yet you and the Dimonds only give lip service to this reality, as most people do.  And as a result of this you believe that a pope can utter heresy in his fallible capacity, and that he would still be pope.

Above, you just said he could not.

I oftentimes express my self poorly. Of course a pope must be without heresy. I did not fully understand what I wrote to you before, and for that I beg pardon. What I have learned from studying (mostly mhfm's site) is that popes can err and do wrong fallibly (which is proved throughout Church history),  and when they do not bind their wrongful opinion for the whole Church. Regarding your second question, my opinion is that all "popes" after Pius XII to be heretics.

This is true but if what they say is heresy (as oppoesed to merely errors, such as John XXII) they lose office.  Pius XII has taught ALL KINDS of errors and yes even some heresies.

You already know that he taught baptism of desire.  Natural Family Planning.

I have hardly gotten through a portion of his writings, and have already found more than that:

On moral relativism

The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.

One is not free to retain their own personal principles of conduct. The only principles of conduct a person may retain are those of the Holy Catholic Faith, as revealed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The above statement is heresy in direct opposition to the following dogmatic decrees:

: "If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.

If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.

Unfortunately, the Dimonds have a large following.