Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Yeti on September 12, 2020, 04:01:22 PM
-
I thought I'd start a new thread on this, which came up in another discussion. The name Dimond is a variant spelling of the name Diamond, which is Jєωιѕн. Neil Diamond, for example, is one of the most famous Jєωs with this name.
.
Here is some proof:
Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=diamond#:~:text=Diamond%20Name%20Meaning.%20Jєωιѕн%20%28αѕнкenαzιc%29%3A%20Americanized%20form%20of,a%20reference%20to%20the%20hardness%20of%20the%20stone%29.)
Yahoo Answers (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090201113630AAuO2T9)
Familypedia (https://familypedia.wikia.org/wiki/Diamond_(surname)#:~:text=The%20surname%20Diamond%20originates%20from%20many%20origins%2C%20including,content%20is%20available%20under%20CC-BY-SA%20unless%20otherwise%20noted.)
.
It is also noteworthy that they were not raised Catholic, and only claim to have converted to Catholicism.
-
I don't post much anymore on CI, but, I've always said the same thing when the sheep on CI post against the Dimond's:
I like the Dimond's, they have conviction and are not afraid to say what they believe, even if they are not liked by some people. They have intestinal fortitude. I have nothing but respect for people like that.
-
Lots of names have Jєωιѕн backgrounds. That’s not evidence.
-
If this man were a Jєω, it'd be the biggest surprise of my life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8QgbCGxTJg&ab_channel=cheZIT20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8QgbCGxTJg&ab_channel=cheZIT20)
Most Jєωιѕн surnames were originally German ones that we now associate largely with Jєωs. Considering his birth name was Frederick, I'd wager German ancestry before Jєωιѕн.i
-
Lots of names have Jєωιѕн backgrounds. That’s not evidence.
Can you please explain this? Having a Jєωιѕн last name sure seems to me like evidence that someone is a Jєω.
-
Can you please explain this? Having a Jєωιѕн last name sure seems to me like evidence that someone is a Jєω.
Because most "Jєωιѕн" surnames are just German surnames. In the US you can usually tell a Jєω because he has "-mann" or "-berg" at the end of his name, but these would also be common with non-Jєωιѕн Germans.
Also, on another note, I looked up Dimond and found nothing saying it comes from Diamond. Most sites say it's an Anglo-Saxon surname most common in Devonshire. https://www.your-family-history.com/surname/d/dimond/
-
Because most "Jєωιѕн" surnames are just German surnames. In the US you can usually tell a Jєω because he has "-mann" or "-berg" at the end of his name, but these would also be common with non-Jєωιѕн Germans.
Also, on another note, I looked up Dimond and found nothing saying it comes from Diamond. Most sites say it's an Anglo-Saxon surname most common in Devonshire. https://www.your-family-history.com/surname/d/dimond/
According to Ancestry.co.uk the name Dimond is a variant of Diamond (https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=dimond&geo_a=r&o_iid=62817&o_lid=62817&o_sch=Web+Property). While it does say that the name Dimond can be of Irish (I think) origin too, when used as the name of the crystal it is Jєωιѕн. Neil Diamond is certainly a Jєω. And while many Jєωιѕн names end in -man or -stein or similar endings, it is not at all true to say that all or even most do.
.
We'd have to ask one of our many resident Jєω experts to weigh in on this, but this evidence all looks pretty good to me. I will grant, though, that there is an Irish variant of the name that seems to be Gaelic, as you mentioned, and I can't say for sure which version the Dimonds got their name from, but I don't see any way to dismiss the Jєω possibility either.
-
Here is a nice smiling photograph of Neil Diamond:
.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bb/6c/f4/bb6cf4b89203181ff0470cf3e8616b52--neil-diamond-music-videos.jpg)
-
If this man were a Jєω, it'd be the biggest surprise of my life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8QgbCGxTJg&ab_channel=cheZIT20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8QgbCGxTJg&ab_channel=cheZIT20)
Most Jєωιѕн surnames were originally German ones that we now associate largely with Jєωs. Considering his birth name was Frederick, I'd wager German ancestry before Jєωιѕн.i
.
From Ancestry.com: The page for Dimond redirects you to the page for Diamond, where it says that Diamond is a "Jєωιѕн (αѕнкenαzιc): Americanized form of a Jєωιѕн surname, spelled in various ways ..."
.
From Yahoo Answers: "Jєωιѕн question: Is Dimond a Jєωιѕн surname?" Answer: "Yes. Their names are often combined with precious metals and 'berg' or 'stein' or 'man'. For instance, Goldstein, Silverberg, Feldman. Be vigiliant."
.
From Familypedia: "The surname Diamond originates from many origins, including Africa, and Israel. If your pigmentation is white and your last name is Diamond, than you are 95% probable of a Jєω"
-
.
From Ancestry.com: The page for Dimond redirects you to the page for Diamond, where it says that Diamond is a "Jєωιѕн (αѕнкenαzιc): Americanized form of a Jєωιѕн surname, spelled in various ways ..."
.
From Yahoo Answers: "Jєωιѕн question: Is Dimond a Jєωιѕн surname?" Answer: "Yes. Their names are often combined with precious metals and 'berg' or 'stein' or 'man'. For instance, Goldstein, Silverberg, Feldman. Be vigiliant."
.
From Familypedia: "The surname Diamond originates from many origins, including Africa, and Israel. If your pigmentation is white and your last name is Diamond, than you are 95% probable of a Jєω"
Let's finish the Ancestry.com quote
Jєωιѕн (αѕнкenαzιc): Americanized form of a Jєωιѕн surname, spelled in various ways, derived from modern German Diamant, Demant ‘diamond’, or Yiddish dime(n)t, going back to Middle High German diemant (via Latin from Greek adamas ‘unconquerable’, genitive adamantos, a reference to the hardness of the stone). The name is mostly ornamental, one of the many αѕнкenαzιc surnames based on mineral names, though in some cases it may have been adopted by a Jєωeler. English: variant of Dayman (see Day). Forms with the excrescent d are not found before the 17th century; they are at least in part the result of folk etymology. Irish: Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó Diamáin ‘descendant of Diamán’, earlier Díomá or Déamán, a diminutive of Díoma, itself a pet form of Diarmaid (see McDermott).
So it can have Jєωιѕн, German, English or Irish origins. A ginger man named Frederick Dimond whose nose doesn't look Jєωιѕн could very easily fit into any of the other three categories.
-
I have heard it claimed before that the Dimond brothers were Jєωιѕн converts but I have never seen any evidence other than their name. I have never seen them talk about their upbringing. The most I have heard is that their parents did not practice any religion, so they may have been atheist Jєωs. In searching online for info on this topic I found a video of Ibranyi talking about his time at the monastery, which I will watch before I go to bed tonight.
-
I have a cousin whose maiden name is Diamond, and if she were Jєωιѕн, it would be news to everyone, including her.
As someone else pointed out, Jєωιѕн names are very often comprised of a precious metal (or even a non-precious metal, e.g. the German Eisen, "iron") and a Germanic suffix such as -man(n), -berg, or -stein, or I would add, something found in nature, such as a tree or plant (e.g., Rosenblum "rose flower" or just Baum "tree"). If I understand correctly, Jєωs did not have proper surnames, so when they were forced to adopt them, they had to pick something. Possibly the metal names and nature names just "caught on" among them.
I have also had to wonder about Portuguese names that are also the words for various kinds of trees, e.g., Pereira "pear tree" or Oliveira "olive tree". Could those originally have been Sephardic names?
-
.
We'd have to ask one of our many resident Jєω experts to weigh in on this, but this evidence all looks pretty good to me. ... I don't see any way to dismiss the Jєω possibility either.
Here I am!!!
Make up your mind, Yeti.
Is it
“the Jєω possibility”?
Is it as per other thread?
The Dimonds are Jєω converts (?)
Or
The Dimond brothers are Jєωs
(as per title)
You don’t make any distinction between Jєωιѕн religion and Jєωιѕн heritage?
What if they have Jєωιѕн heritage?
Are they, or are they not Catholic?
-
Let's finish the Ancestry.com quoteSo it can have Jєωιѕн, German, English or Irish origins. A ginger man named Frederick Dimond whose nose doesn't look Jєωιѕн could very easily fit into any of the other three categories.
Many Jєωs have naturally red hair.
But I agree, Frederick Dimond doesn't look at all Jєωιѕн. But then again, neither do Goldie Hawn or Gwyneth Paltrow, both half-Jєωιѕн, and I suppose, you can see something around the mouth if you know what to look for, a kind of prominence that's hard to describe but I know it when I see it.
He actually kind of reminds me of a young Ron Howard. Richie Cunningham as an uber-sedevacantist monk! Who would have ever thought it?
I'm not a partisan of MHFM but I do have to admit, some of their stuff is pretty good. The video Creation and Miracles is outstanding.
-
Dimonds have some good info but because they are among the libelers of Card Rampolla, i vote marrano... :cowboy:
-
They definitely have some good anti prot materials that I will share with the appropriate caveats but on whole they are just way overboard.
But this is what happens when you absolutely convince yourself that Lefebvre didn't believe in EENS
-
They definitely have some good anti prot materials that I will share with the appropriate caveats but on whole they are just way overboard.
But this is what happens when you absolutely convince yourself that Lefebvre didn't believe in EENS
Translation:
The above writer does not believe in EENS as it is written, but in a broadened EENS where Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, and other false religions can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards. The Dimond's believe in EENS as it is written. The above writer can no longer claim to be ignorant of these basic distinctions, therefore, he is just another EENS sophist.
-
Holy Family Monastery was founded by Brother Joseph, an old monk, in New Jersey across the river from Philadelphia, PA. There were two young novices. Brother John and Bother Michael. Their apostolate was printing and distributing Catholic leaflets and booklets. Brother Joseph died. Brother Michael had a stronger personality than Brother John. He proclaimed himself superior. Brother John left. He was John Vennari, married, and edited Catholic Family News working with Fr. Gruner until his death.
Brother Michael sold the very valuable New Jersey property and bought a place in upstate New York. His free-loading brother moved in with him. They kept the name Holy Family Monastery but really are just two good old boys enjoying themselves. They do not accept men who might want to join. There are no postulants or novices allowed. The brother never did a religious novitiate. Since Brother Joseph died it has not been a monastery, except in name.
It really doesn't matter if they have Jєωιѕн ancestry or not if they have converted to the Catholic faith. They are not priests and probably have never had Mass or the sacraments at the "monastery".
-
Or it’s simply a variation of Dimonde. Nothing to go on here. Dimonde is from the root monde, Latin mundus.
-
Translation:
The above writer does not believe in EENS as it is written, but in a broadened EENS where Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, and other false religions can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards. The Dimond's believe in EENS as it is written. The above writer can no longer claim to be ignorant of these basic distinctions, therefore, he is just another EENS sophist.
Meh. You people treat dogmas the way Protestants treat the Bible. Its the same. And its just as silly.
-
Meh. You people treat dogmas the way Protestants treat the Bible. Its the same. And its just as silly.
WARNING- The above writer is a convert, that knows little about Catholicism, a blind guide
-
WARNING- The above writer is a convert, that knows little about Catholicism, a blind guide
I'm not denying this (the convert part anyway), but like, almost every if not every Traditional priest disagrees with you on this. Its not like I came up with this interpretation.
-
Meh. You people treat dogmas the way Protestants treat the Bible. Its the same. And its just as silly.
That sounds like a Modernist and not like a Catholic.
-
Also if the Dimonds stopped at Feeneyite (description, not insult, at least from me) interpretations of BOD, BOB, and Invincible Ignorance, I wouldn't criticize them so harshly. The reason I really dislike them (though to be clear, that doesn't mean I think we can't take the good and reject the bad) is because they also condemn all the *Catholic* clergy who have ever disagreed with them. They're schismatics.
-
WARNING- The above writer is a convert, that knows little about Catholicism, a blind guide
:sleep:
His position is less extreme than the one taken by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and just about every priest alive(including the SSPX priests you accept communion from). Go condemn them instead of crusading against some layman for following them.
-
:sleep:
His position is less extreme than the one taken by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and just about every priest alive(including the SSPX priests you accept communion from). Go condemn them instead of crusading against some layman for following them.
I hold the same view Archbishop Lefebvre did, not really a less extreme one. All that being said, if a Pope ever clearly in the future declares ex cathedra, or holds a dogmatic ecuмenical council to declare, that there is no salvation without becoming a formal and visible member of the Catholic Church, I would certainly submit to it. But the bottom line is, if Florence was itself clear on this matter (remember Florence uses the word "outside" which is less specific than "formal and visible member") well then clearly all the Trad clergy missed the memo. I doubt this. Seems a lot more likely to me that just Florence/Unam Sanctum/whichever old docuмents aren't as clear as Last Tradhican thinks they are.
And if I'm really a "new convert who doesn't know anything about Catholicism" (OK maybe) then why in the world should I listen to randoms on Cathinfo over basically every priest in the world, whether Traditionalist or not? (they all disagree with the Feeneyites here.)
Now, personally, if somebody wants to disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and "just about every priest alive" and agree with Fr. Feeney instead, perhaps one can do that in good faith. I'm certainly not going to run around calling those people heretics, because it seems fruitless to me (bigger fish to fry and all that.) My even bigger issue with the Dimonds isn't so much that they take those positions themselves, but that they also act as though they have the authority to condemn other Catholics for disagreeing with their interpretation of EENS. That's the *core* issue IMO
-
I have heard it claimed before that the Dimond brothers were Jєωιѕн converts but I have never seen any evidence other than their name. I have never seen them talk about their upbringing. The most I have heard is that their parents did not practice any religion, so they may have been atheist Jєωs. In searching online for info on this topic I found a video of Ibranyi talking about his time at the monastery, which I will watch before I go to bed tonight.
I think their bio claims the parents were university professors?
-
Holy Family Monastery was founded by Brother Joseph, an old monk, in New Jersey across the river from Philadelphia, PA. There were two young novices. Brother John and Bother Michael. Their apostolate was printing and distributing Catholic leaflets and booklets. Brother Joseph died. Brother Michael had a stronger personality than Brother John. He proclaimed himself superior. Brother John left. He was John Vennari, married, and edited Catholic Family News working with Fr. Gruner until his death.
Brother Michael sold the very valuable New Jersey property and bought a place in upstate New York. His free-loading brother moved in with him. They kept the name Holy Family Monastery but really are just two good old boys enjoying themselves. They do not accept men who might want to join. There are no postulants or novices allowed. The brother never did a religious novitiate. Since Brother Joseph died it has not been a monastery, except in name.
It really doesn't matter if they have Jєωιѕн ancestry or not if they have converted to the Catholic faith. They are not priests and probably have never had Mass or the sacraments at the "monastery".
John Vennari was at this fake monastery for 14 years!
Then he goes into the trad publishing business, on the opposite theological side from Dimond.
He was under the editorial control of Fr. Gruner and had as much influence on Tradition as ten vocal bishops.
Makes you wonder who's behind it all ? :popcorn:
-
Incredulous is a Jєω! I’m convinced! I have proof! Don’t Jєωs try to cover their tracks by projecting? Incredulous always tries to convince people on this site that nearly everyone but himself is a Jєω. And look at his profile picture.....if that’s not Jєωιѕн propaganda, I don’t know what is. How about always using the color blue in his posts? It’s the color of the Zionist controlled UN. As a matter of fact, how about the name “Incredulous” what good Catholic uses a secular non-religious name like that? And aren’t Jєωs Incredulous? They don’t believe our Lord.
That’s what Incredulous means, disbelieving. See how that works Incredulous?
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
QVD... you outed me :facepalm:
Someone finally figured out I was using zionist blue.
-
Incredulous is a Jєω! I’m convinced!
Let me see:
Incredulous Reputation +6173/-634
QVD Reputation +567/-710
It is very hard to get a negative reputation on CI, very hard. I vote for QVD as the problem.
-
Let me see:
Incredulous Reputation +6173/-634
QVD Reputation +567/-710
It is very hard to get a negative reputation on CI, very hard. I vote for QVD as the problem.
To be clear, I didn’t give you the downvote, but I’ll bet $100 you’re the one who gave me one for that post. Apparently you didn’t like the sarcasm or perhaps it was too much for you to comprehend, too bad for you. Frankly, I could care less about my downvotes now because 80+% of them are from Croix and I care even less about your opinion which, in my estimation, means next to nothing. Cheers!
😀
-
WARNING- The above writer is a convert, that knows little about Catholicism, a blind guide
You forgot to also warn that even though he’s a convert and knows little about Catholicism, he knowns much much more than you about it.
-
Now, personally, if somebody wants to disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and "just about every priest alive" and agree with Fr. Feeney instead, perhaps one can do that in good faith.
I think we need to put aside the BoD issue. If all +Lefebvre et al. had done was to accept a Baptism of Desire, I wouldn't spend much time on it at all.
No, +Lefebvre has gone on record stating that INFIDELS can be saved.
So I will agree with ST. THOMAS AQUINAS and ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE against +Lefebvre, +Williamson, et al. I will agree with the Holy Office ruling that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, and I will agree with the absolutely unanimous teaching and belief of the Church for the first nearly-1600 years of her existence that at the very least explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
BoD is a distraction from the MAIN issue here. It is THIS problem that led to all the errors of Vatican II, and not a Thomistic BoD.
You're mischaracterizing the core problem when you make it into +Lefebvre vs. Feeney when it's actually +Lefebvre vs. Aquinas, and the Holy Office, and the first 1600 years of Church history.
If +Lefebvre's EENS theology is correct, along with the implied resultant ecclesiology, then he has zero theological ground for opposing Vatican II, since Vatican II is doing nothing more than articulating this exact same ecclesiology.
There used to be a poster on here, Arvinger, who believed in a Thomistic BoD but nevertheless held a solid Catholic ecclesiology. I lauded him for this and considered him an ally in this fight rather than an adversary. BoD is a distraction being used to hide the real issue. Father Feeney was in fact not originally criticized and condemned for his BoD position, which came later in the fight. He was attacked for believing in the dogma EENS. His chief rival, +Cushing, was an open denier of EENS, stating in an official biography: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
-
QVD... you outed me :facepalm:
Someone finally figured out I was using zionist blue.
And blue rhymes with.........well, you know where I'm going.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/Jєωιѕн-man-wears-blue-kippah-600w-1529763140.jpg)
-
I have a quote from Richard Ibranyi on Brother Michael Dimond's Jєωιѕн numerology. Now I personally don't like Ibranyi. He is in my opinion the craziest sedevacantist out there when it comes to the seat of the peter thinking that the seat of peter has been vacant since 1130. Yes, 1130. But, he is right about the dimonds. He was right in the middle of the MHFM controversy in the 1990's after Bro. Joseph Natale died. Here is what he said that sums MHFM up quite well:
In Brother Michael‘s article he has taught blasphemy and is guilty of schismatic interpretations of Holy Scripture that go against the unanimous consent of the Church fathers, and is guilty of using apostate Jєωιѕн, cabalistic numerology. He indicates that this information did not come from him, but came from an anonymous visitor. I dare say, the devil sneaked into the monastery and Brother Michael opened the door wide, allowing himself to be filled with this garbage. Any serious scripture scholar, as were all the Church Fathers, would condemn Brother Michael‘s interpretations as foolish, rash, ridiculous, blasphemous, and show a lack of even common sense. - Richard Ibranyi
-
Media savvy, sensationalist, obnoxious, exclusive, etc.-- very Jєωιѕн characteristics I am told, very consistent with the Dimonds' behavior. Also consistent with the behavior of 'Brother Nathanael,' who is another one I have never taken to, and I believe similar claims about him being Jєωιѕн exist.
.
I am sure Yeti meant Jєωs in the racial/ethnic/cultural/whatever sense, not that they are literally practicing the Jєωιѕн religion. Jєωs evidently have a way of behaving, even if/when they convert, that is Jєωιѕн without being religiously Jєωιѕн. I don't get why people are so resistant to the idea. Makes perfect sense to me.
-
I think we need to put aside the BoD issue. If all +Lefebvre et al. had done was to accept a Baptism of Desire, I wouldn't spend much time on it at all.
No, +Lefebvre has gone on record stating that INFIDELS can be saved.
So I will agree with ST. THOMAS AQUINAS and ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE against +Lefebvre, +Williamson, et al. I will agree with the Holy Office ruling that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, and I will agree with the absolutely unanimous teaching and belief of the Church for the first nearly-1600 years of her existence that at the very least explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.
BoD is a distraction from the MAIN issue here. It is THIS problem that led to all the errors of Vatican II, and not a Thomistic BoD.
You're mischaracterizing the core problem when you make it into +Lefebvre vs. Feeney when it's actually +Lefebvre vs. Aquinas, and the Holy Office, and the first 1600 years of Church history.
If +Lefebvre's EENS theology is correct, along with the implied resultant ecclesiology, then he has zero theological ground for opposing Vatican II, since Vatican II is doing nothing more than articulating this exact same ecclesiology.
There used to be a poster on here, Arvinger, who believed in a Thomistic BoD but nevertheless held a solid Catholic ecclesiology. I lauded him for this and considered him an ally in this fight rather than an adversary. BoD is a distraction being used to hide the real issue. Father Feeney was in fact not originally criticized and condemned for his BoD position, which came later in the fight. He was attacked for believing in the dogma EENS. His chief rival, +Cushing, was an open denier of EENS, stating in an official biography: "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
The issue with appealing to the old theologians here is that I'd imagine Lefebvre and Williamson would disagree with your interpretation of them, and I'm not enough of an expert on them to be able to say which of you is right, and which is wrong. I will be honest and admit it was more the early church fathers that got me to convert (and thus, where I have more familiarity) than the Medievals, even still, I know we've argued about St Justin Martyr before (I argued that he articulates something similar to what Archbishop Lefebvre does, and you disagreed) but I don't have dogmatic certainty that I'm right, since your explanation is *possible.*
I will agree that the debate is about *how we understand* EENS. Its not about the dogma per se, because nobody here (either those of us who may disagree with your point of view, or else the Trad clergy who hold to a Lefebvre type position) would agree with Cardinal Cushing. In sharp contrast, I'd actually say that Cushing is a heretic, whereas I do not believe that you are, because Cushing straight up disagreed with a Church dogma, whereas even if you are wrong, you are clearly attempting to follow all Church dogma.
The reason I brought up Fr. Feeney was because *in the modern era* it just seems to be him, and Fr. Wathen, who take this view. The rest of the trad clergy do not, even though I have a hard time believing they're seriously just ignorant either of the dogma or how it was applied before 1600.
Now this may just be an instance where you know more than both me and the trad clergy. And my answer to that is that while I can't rule out the possibility, it is easy for me to believe you know more than me, of course, but it is much harder for me to believe you know more than Lefebvre, Williamson, etc.
Now as far as Vatican II goes, I will grant I'm still working through that one, and admit to it. But I can't help but look at the fact that what we're seeing through *most* of the Church doesn't look like either Lefebvre or what you'd get from a Lefebvre style EENS. Most of what you're saying is *far* more ecuмenical, *far* more tolerant of false religions, and not to mention the liturgy was majorly watered down. You don't have (most of) the modern clergy saying some adherents of false religions may be saved with great difficulty. You have them saying "well maybe we can hope nobody goes to hell" (and let's be real, Bishop Barron isn't the worst.)
Now, I'm theoretically open to an FSSP take on Vatican II, where the docuмents themselves conform to tradition, but have just been applied in a terrible manner. But then my question is, how is any of that glorified to God? If this is what the docuмents lead to, it seems better to just burn them, even if they can *technuckalleeey* be interpreted in an orthodox manner if you squint really hard and kind of read between the lines. Why bother? What's the point?
Separate and semi related, I have no idea how to reconcile Dignitatis Humane with the Tradition though. "Who gets into heaven exactly at the final eschaton" may be somewhat mysterious, but whether false religions should be tolerated in the hear and now seem pretty concrete.
But I acknowledge that this debate isn't about BOD per se, and that there are formulations of BOD (whether this was really all St Thomas held to, I do not know enough to say) that would still fall on your side of the "strict EENS question."
I almost want to call the Lefebvre position "Moderately strict EENS" but I realize that would be objectionable to many here.
-
I remember one of the nineteenth century popes saying Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, yet for those in invincible ignorance there is a possibility for God to save them somehow, but to speak more about this mystery is forbidden. This warning was obviously not taken seriously as nobody can stop talking about universal salvation. From the invincibly ignorant to Christ-hating Jєωs (from a sede priest).
-
I remember one of the nineteenth century popes saying Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, yet for those in invincible ignorance there is a possibility for God to save them somehow, but to speak more about this mystery is forbidden. This warning was obviously not taken seriously as nobody can stop talking about universal salvation. From the invincibly ignorant to Christ-hating Jєωs (from a sede priest).
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
-
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
I was speaking in that sentence in general terms about all Catholics including Novus Ordo types, not just Cathinfo members. People like Bp. Barron who is considered to be a conservative and normie Catholics who listen to John Paul II or Francis.
-
Nobody here believes in universal salvation.
Correction: Poche does :popcorn:
-
I was speaking in that sentence in general terms about all Catholics including Novus Ordo types, not just Cathinfo members. People like Bp. Barron who is considered to be a conservative and normie Catholics who listen to John Paul II or Francis.
To be fair to Bishop Barron, he's not quite a universalist, but he trends pretty close, considering the idea that Hell is completely empty to be a legitimate possibility, which I believe is condemned by the fifth (I think it was the fifth and not the sixth) ecuмenical council and thus is materially heretical.
But as far as Trads go, we're debating whether non Christians have an outside shot at being inside the Church without formally joining via perfect contrition, not whether salvation is just handed out to anyone who's good.