Author Topic: Dimond Brothers are Jews  (Read 1185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4118
  • Reputation: +2179/-1160
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2020, 04:40:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Incredulous is a Jew! 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. 
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1533
    • Reputation: +619/-747
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #31 on: September 15, 2020, 07:07:00 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • 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!

    😀
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1533
    • Reputation: +619/-747
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #32 on: September 15, 2020, 07:31:44 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 22038
    • Reputation: +12157/-6119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #33 on: September 15, 2020, 11:38:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."

    Offline alaric

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2247
    • Reputation: +1766/-179
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #34 on: September 15, 2020, 04:49:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.


    Offline maccabeansoft

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 462
    • Reputation: +127/-73
    • Gender: Male
    • Pray, hope, and don't worry. - St. Padre Pio
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #35 on: September 16, 2020, 01:51:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a quote from Richard Ibranyi on Brother Michael Dimond's jewish 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 Jewish, 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
    Somewhere in the last century, Western man suffered a catastrophic loss of faith—in himself, in his civilization, and in the faith that gave it birth. - Pat Buchanan 2008

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3789
    • Reputation: +4340/-376
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #36 on: September 16, 2020, 03:56:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Media savvy, sensationalist, obnoxious, exclusive, etc.-- very Jewish 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 Jewish exist.
    .
    I am sure Yeti meant Jews in the racial/ethnic/cultural/whatever sense, not that they are literally practicing the Jewish religion.  Jews evidently have a way of behaving, even if/when they convert, that is Jewish without being religiously Jewish.  I don't get why people are so resistant to the idea.  Makes perfect sense to me.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1265
    • Reputation: +282/-98
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #37 on: September 16, 2020, 05:55:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 ecumenical, *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 documents 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 documents 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.  


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6076
    • Reputation: +3367/-216
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #38 on: September 16, 2020, 06:06:34 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Jews (from a sede priest).
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1265
    • Reputation: +282/-98
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #39 on: September 16, 2020, 07:21:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 Jews (from a sede priest).
    Nobody here believes in universal salvation.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6076
    • Reputation: +3367/-216
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #40 on: September 16, 2020, 07:29:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5658
    • Reputation: +6251/-642
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #41 on: September 16, 2020, 07:32:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nobody here believes in universal salvation.

    Correction:  Poche does  :popcorn:
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1265
    • Reputation: +282/-98
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimond Brothers are Jews
    « Reply #42 on: September 16, 2020, 08:03:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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) ecumenical 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.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16