Author Topic: Brother Michael Dimond Condemns Sedevacantism (Read 4738 times)

romantheology · « **on:** October 28, 2011, 07:51:29 AM »

Brother (?) Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery (condemns) Sedevacantism. Is there hope for Dimond?

Video below (starting at 4:22 mintues):

http://gloria.tv/?media=208698

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2011, 06:10:20 PM »

First, 'brother' Dimond is a fraud. He pretends to have Holy Orders, which, if I am not mistaken, is a sacrilege. At the very least. he's rather childish to go around pretending to be in a 'monastery' that is purported to be his house.

Second, what a Brother or a 'brother' or whoever 'condemns' is irrelevant; he is not in any way responsible for defining faith and morals for the Church.

Third, sedevacantism (so-called) is an OPINION that one may choose to have or not. I, for one, believe that the See is currently vacant because of Ratzinger's rampant Modernist heresies. That goes TRIPLE for Wojtyla, who was about as UnCatholic as a person can get without publicly repudiating the Faith in so many words. JPI may or may not have been a valid Pope; I don't know enough about his life except that in his short reign he did nothing public to refute or reverse any of the damage caused by the Council.

Paul VI was an apostate who deliberately attempted to promulgate a New Order of 'mass', the existence of which is a slap in the face to Holy Church and to Pope St. Pius V.

John XXIII was a Freemason and a Modernist who thought the Church needed 'renewing'. Perhaps he would have been better served encouraging the Faith people were LEAVING, rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel.

In short, what Dimond thinks is immaterial. He and his brother are impostors and therefore have nothing to add to the discussion re: the validity of a Pope.

Pope St. Pius V, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

romantheology · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2011, 06:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Third, sedevacantism (so-called) is an OPINION that one may choose to have or not. I, for one, believe that the See is currently vacant because of Ratzinger's rampant Modernist heresies.

Are you for real? You said Sedevcantism is an OPINION....well if it is...so is your OPINION....whether JOHN XXIII, PAUL VI, JOHN PAUL I, II, and BENEDICT XVI are True Popes?

And, what if your wrong? Your a Schismatic then right?

Why? Because to you - it's YOUR OPINION.

ABC THEOLOGY

PetrusPrimus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2011, 06:45:44 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

First, 'brother' Dimond is a fraud. He pretends to have Holy Orders, which, if I am not mistaken, is a sacrilege. At the very least. he's rather childish to go around pretending to be in a 'monastery' that is purported to be his house.]

HMM...What is this one mole calling out another? "Roman theology" lies about Br Michael not being a sedevacantist, when in fact SEVERAL YEARS AGO he held the anti-sedevcantist position. Then Stephen says he pretends to have Holy Orders. Isn't there some sort of BAN on ignorami making claims when they don't know the rudiments of the Faith. I'll assume ignorance over calumny here. The Dimonds NEVER claimed to be deacons or priests.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2011, 09:53:35 PM »

Sorry... I mistyped when I said that claiming to be a Benedictine brother was a claim to Holy Orders.

I was going to reply with your brand of sarcasm and bile, but, Deo gratias, I have been humbled sufficiently by my error and by the enormity of my sins and have no place to offer any rejoinders in kind.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2011, 07:02:52 PM »

Stephen, don't let these moles get to you. They are just online tactical screennames used by people who have been banned from this forum. They have no morality inside of them and will be judged accordingly by God at their own particular Judgment.

Praise be God.

ora pro me · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2011, 10:54:58 PM »

Stephen Francis,
Thank you for your Christlike charity on this forum. You have raised the bar here. Oh, if only you had come sooner!
ora pro me

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2011, 07:01:03 AM »

Quote from: romantheology

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Third, sedevacantism (so-called) is an OPINION that one may choose to have or not. I, for one, believe that the See is currently vacant because of Ratzinger's rampant Modernist heresies.

Are you for real? You said Sedevcantism is an OPINION....well if it is...so is your OPINION....whether JOHN XXIII, PAUL VI, JOHN PAUL I, II, and BENEDICT XVI are True Popes?

And, what if your wrong? Your a Schismatic then right?

Why? Because to you - it's YOUR OPINION.

ABC THEOLOGY

Actually, the theologians are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that a person who adopts the opinion that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a valid pope with good reason is not schismatic even if he is wrong in his assessment.

Amazing how God has provided these times with precident and the theology needed to get us through.

romantheology · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2011, 09:17:18 AM »

"Actually, the theologians are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that a person who adopts the opinion that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a valid pope with good reason is not schismatic even if he is wrong in his assessment."

More heretical depravity. "Unanimous" ok quote them? Because there are people that Deny PIUS IX, PIUS X, PIUS XII.....the list goes on, and you know what - they are schismatics?

Unanimous consent? Where? Who? When? How many? Quote them?

That is an absurd argument.

sedesvacans · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2011, 03:35:48 PM »

RT, you respond like a rabid puppy on crack! Calm down and listen to what people say because the way you come across to people, the last thing that you would be mistaken for is any kind of traditional Catholic.

Gregory I · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2011, 11:31:54 PM »

Quote from: romantheology

"Actually, the theologians are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that a person who adopts the opinion that a particular claimant to the papacy is not a valid pope with good reason is not schismatic even if he is wrong in his assessment."

More heretical depravity. "Unanimous" ok quote them? Because there are people that Deny PIUS IX, PIUS X, PIUS XII.....the list goes on, and you know what - they are schismatics?

Unanimous consent? Where? Who? When? How many? Quote them?

That is an absurd argument.

YOu don'tknow what you are talking about. I have been lurking on you for awhile now, and you really need to do some catching up:

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

romantheology · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2011, 11:46:42 PM »

hahaha...see how absurd you are friend?

Your statements (3) in all...and you do not quote (cite) the actual works or page numbers etc....

I forgot 3 is a unanimous vote? huh? ok...hahaha

In addition, the statements say one cannot be charged with schism for circulated errors....etc...

Well, if this is the case then, what about JOHN XXII ; PAUL VI ; JOHN PAUL I ; JOHN PAUL II and Benedict XVI....the people that (rightly) believe in them are they schismatic?

No!

Principle does not change effect.

The same criteron applies. However, since you lack understanding, it appears...one cannot charge the adherents to these Popes (true or false) as schismatic as well - equal balance?

hahaha....

You gave me a good laugh tonight.

More homework Junior....

Aidos!

Gregory I · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2011, 12:18:55 AM »

Quote from: romantheology

hahaha...see how absurd you are friend?

Your statements (3) in all...and you do not quote (cite) the actual works or page numbers etc....

I forgot 3 is a unanimous vote? huh? ok...hahaha

In addition, the statements say one cannot be charged with schism for circulated errors....etc...

Well, if this is the case then, what about JOHN XXII ; PAUL VI ; JOHN PAUL I ; JOHN PAUL II and Benedict XVI....the people that (rightly) believe in them are they schismatic?

No!

Principle does not change effect.

The same criteron applies. However, since you lack understanding, it appears...one cannot charge the adherents to these Popes (true or false) as schismatic as well - equal balance?

hahaha....

You gave me a good laugh tonight.

More homework Junior....

Aidos!

Let me know when you are actually ready to engage your intellect in a meaningful discussion, and then perhaps we can dispel these pedantic notions of yours. THere is just so much WRONG in this quote I cannot even begin, it's overwhelming...But I will.

Let's eviscerate you slowly, shall we?

" Your statements (3) in all...and you do not quote (cite) the actual works or page numbers etc...."

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
[/u]

These are adequately referenced, giving you title, author and paragraph. It's not like you'd take the responsibility to look it up for yourself anyway. But this is just a taste to get you started. Your grasping at PAGE NUMBERS is simply evidence of the fact that you have nothing to say. Look up the Bio on each of these three. They are trained professional theologians or canonists.

[b]"I forgot 3 is a unanimous vote? huh? ok...hahaha"[/b]

You are ridiculous, I never said anything about unanimity. However, there is a difference between a univocal unanimity and a moral unanimity. A univocal unanimity is when all the members of a group profess the same thing. A moral unanimity is when some members of a group profess something, but the others do not oppose them. Due to the lack of opposition, there can be a moral unanimity.

"In addition, the statements say one cannot be charged with schism for circulated errors....etc..."

Really? You can't even get the QUOTE right?! It said on account of circulated RUMORS. Not all rumors are errors. By changing it to errors, you shift the tone away from the point: WE are not schismatic for saying Wojtyla is a heretic, and as such has no legitimate ministry in the church. An act of schism is the refusal to submit to legitimate authority. But if the authority is NOT LEGITIMATE, or is PERCEIVED as not legitimate, no act of schism exists!

"Well, if this is the case then, what about JOHN XXII ; PAUL VI ; JOHN PAUL I ; JOHN PAUL II and Benedict XVI....the people that (rightly) believe in them are they schismatic?"

A traditionalist who adheres to Benedict XVI ignorantly is not schismatic: he is putting his faith where he believes the Unity of the Church lies. However, he is objectively mistaken, because Benedict XVI is not the Pope for at LEAST 3 reasons:

1. He is a heretic. He has taught manifest and notorious heresy before his election, and after. As such, he has lost office in the church, according to canon 188.4 1917 code of canon law, heresy being defection from faith.

2. He was not consecrated a Bishop until AFTER 1968, and the rite of episcopal ordination is intrinsically flawed and invalid. It cannot confect the sacrament because the form does not signify what it is supposed to effect (the conferal of the episcopal office) making it defunct, making the sacrament invalid. Therefore, he cannot be Pope because he is no Bishop.

3. He no longer occupies the office of Pope by definition: He subscribes to Lumen Gentium which re-defined the nature of the church, thereby creating a New office for the head of a new church. A Pope is the visible head of Christ on earth and ruler of the visible church militant. As such, by definition he can always exercise his power freely over the visible members of the church of Christ. BUT GUESS WHAT?! Lumen Gentium now says the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church, meaning that it is a distinct entity. Ratzinger himself asserted the same thing, he believes that the Church of Christ is larger than the Catholic Church, and that heretics and schismatics can be members f the Church of Christ! THerefore, heretics and schismatics can be visible members of the church of Christ! BUT WAIT! Doesn't the Pope have supreme universal jurisdiction over all the visible members of the body of Christ? YEP! So, does Ratzinger have Jurisdiction over the Orthodox and Lutherans? NOPE! But aren't they members of the Church of Christ? YEP! Then....is he Pope if he cannot exercise the Powers of a Pope?! NOPE! He cannot excercise the Papal power, by definition, over those who he claims to be members of the Visible body of Christ, yet he thinks he is the Pope. HA!

Principle does not change effect.

The same criteron applies. However, since you lack understanding, it appears...one cannot charge the adherents to these Popes (true or false) as schismatic as well - equal balance?

There you go again, just spouting off, no one said ANYTHING about you who blithely refuse to acknowledge that you have heretics for leaders, I was simply defending the FACT that a Sedevacantist cannot be a Schismatic, because he doesn't not withdraw from legitimate authority. He withdraws from usurpers and heretics.

hahaha....

You gave me a good laugh tonight.

More homework Junior....

Indeed. Your maturity knows no limits.

romantheology · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2011, 12:30:55 AM »

Your hands must be tired huh?

Do you still love the SSPX?

Gregory I · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2011, 12:35:54 AM »

I don't love the society, although I acknowledge the fact that they probably get more valid sacraments out than any other traditionalist group. I respect them for that. But I don't respect how they can think Benny is the Pope and then tell him what parts of his magisterial teaching they will accept and reject. It's funny, because alot of the priests use the argument that you shouldn't try to judge the Pope, you can't pass sentence on him, you shouldn't be asking these questions as a sedevacantist anyway, yadda yadda, but THEN they go and SIFT through his writings and try to PICK and CHOOSE which parts to accept and which parts to reject, and they are implicitly doing the SAME THING! Why don't you just lay your head down Bishop Fellay and do what the "Pope" tells you? Show some consistency! That's what I don't like.

Tired hands? You have no clue... lol.