To UbiPetrus (perhaps Griff Ruby?):
You say that the Dimonds lie, but the opposite is true. You are actually the one who lies on basically every page you write on this issue. An honest person who reads your writing carefully will notice distortions and lies all over your material. I have looked at your material, and basically everything you claim on this issue is false. I could provide many examples of this, but a few will suffice. There’s hardly a bit of truth in your claims. Dimond also pointed this out by refuting you on a number of points, demonstrating that you refused a debate challenge for obvious reasons, and destroying your credibility in the process. Here are just a few examples to show that you are the one who distorts things and is totally dishonest. These will suffice to demonstrate that your claims are not reliable and that you have no credibility.
You say this is a lie:
1) St. John Chrysostom's quote regarding the damnation of catechumens (concealing that only those who needlessly procrastinate their baptism, thus showing contempt for the Sacrament, are thus damned).
Your claim would be laughable if it weren’t a false statement and one about a serious issue. First, the quote speaks for itself. It’s another example of how the early Church did not believe that unbaptized catechumens or anyone else could be saved without being baptized. That’s the overwhelming view (a few selective quotes notwithstanding), in addition to the magisterial and infallible teaching of Pope St. Siricius and Pope Leo the Great.
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
Second, as Dimond pointed out when refuting you, the passage is also quoted in the very same way in a book written by an SSPX priest who supports ‘Baptism of Desire’. The priest, who believes in 'baptism of desire', agrees that the passage is an example of a view that contradicts the concept of 'baptism of desire'! So, the pro-BOD priest of the SSPX agrees with Dimond (not you) on the issue. Is the SSPX priest (Jean-Marc Rulleau) lying, according to you, by citing the quote from Chrysostom (as quoted above) as an example of one that contradicts the concept of BOD? Why would the SSPX lie and present a quote that doesn’t contradict BOD as if it does? That shows how absurd your claims are. You are incompetent and dishonest.
The fact that Rulleau quoted Chrysostom just as Dimond did caused Griff Ruby to actually retract his false accusation against the Dimonds. Griff said.
"They [the Dimonds] do point out that Fr. Rulleau made the same omissions in claiming such a passage as an example of the "opposite side," though it isn't clear whether Fr. Rulleau intended to show a misquote as an example of the only means for providing supposed arguments for that "opposite side," of if he may have himself only quoted the portions of it he saw somewhere else and simply copied that. All right, so maybe I cannot blame the Dimonds for their particular selection of what parts of this quote are to be provided.”
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/feb17str.htmIn a nutshell, this captures your dishonesty. You claimed the citation constituted a lie until you realized, as the Dimonds pointed out, that the SSPX also cites the passage that way. And then it ‘ceased to be a lie,’ according to you. There was no lie at all to begin with. You were the one lying, attempting to distort anything you could.
Next, you say this is a lie:
2) St. Bernard of Clairvaux's quote regarding "whether in error or in truth" (made to seem as if he was not as certain as the text following showed him to be regarding BOD).
Dimond cited Bernard, who said those very words: “whether in error or in truth.” That's what Bernard said. Bernard indeed indicated that he would be wrong, that his claims were not infallible, as they were not derived from the infallible teaching of the Church. There is no lie there whatsoever in Dimond’s comments. You lie by claiming it’s a lie.
#6 You claim this is a lie of Dimond: “6) Council of Trent’s Session 7 Canon 5 regarding the necessity of Baptism (misleading by adding words to insert the idea that it is the Sacrament of Baptism instead of merely Baptism itself (of whichever of its three forms) being necessary for salvation).”
Your claim is again totally false. Dimond points out that Trent’s canons on Baptism are Canons on the Sacrament (Canones de sacramento baptismi). Many people don’t realize that fact. Therefore, when the canons refer to ‘Baptism,’ they refer to the Sacrament. They are canons on ‘the Sacrament.’ You are implying that Dimond added a word to the text. He did not. He cites it this way:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Dimond simply emphasized this totally true point by putting ‘the Sacrament,’ not in the quote itself but in brackets to note that Trent itself identifies these canons as ‘on the Sacrament’. Perhaps you are ignorant of what brackets signify? If so, you have no business writing articles. That’s true for other reasons as well. So, what you call a lie is not in the slightest bit untrue. You thus are the one who lies.
I could take the time and go through all of your other points, but a few examples suffice to show that you have no credibility and that your claims aren’t to be taken seriously. If you are Griff Ruby, the reason you lie on this issue is you are desperate to defend your heretical belief that souls can be saved in false religions. You even believe that Muslims, Jєωs, etc. can be saved without faith in Christ. You even believe that Jєωs who reject Jesus could be saved. You don't believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Hence diabolic spirits use an unbeliever like you to attack the truths of faith. Here are some other disturbing facts about ‘Griff Ruby’:
GRIFF RUBY THINKS MARTIN LUTHER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN ACTUAL HERETIC, BUT RATHER IN GOOD FAITH
Griff R. believes that Martin Luther (who attacked the Catholic Church as demonic and the papal teaching as a pile of heresies) may have been in good faith: He says:
Griff Ruby: “For example, prove to me that Martin Luther was a formal heretic, and as such the rightful recipient of the excommunication he received from Pope Leo X. Perhaps, he was only a material heretic? Who (but himself and God) can know? No one can ascertain his interior state, whether he himself knew himself to be a heretic or not. Perhaps he sincerely believed in his errors. Unlikely as that sounds, we'll never know…”
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul21str.htmThat is demonic. Griff R. also believes in salvation for members of false religions, and for those who haven’t heard the Gospel. He makes that clear in his series.
THE UNBELIEVER GRIFF RUBY ALSO THINKS A PROTESTANT ‘CHURCH’ WAS THE BEST PLACE FOR A ‘NEW CONVERT’!
Griff R. also said that after he converted to Protestantism (which he considers Christianity) the best place for a new Christian to have gone was evangelical Protestantism! So, those who read Griff R. are reading the writing of a heretic and false convert. Look at this incredible heresy he spews:
Griff Ruby: “Then I began regularly attending the Evangelical church, and learning from an extraordinarily wise and insightful pastor, for which I am grateful. Steering clear of divisive topics, he nevertheless found much to say of great value and interest, and much of what he taught holds up extremely well even today, in view of everything I have learned since. I cannot think of a better place for a new Christian to have gone. (Would even the pre-Vatican II Church have impressed me as much? I was in need of far more basic lessons than even their most basic. For example, what authority actually was, which Catholic catechists take for granted, presupposing that the listener already knows) And then one day the pastor left, and thus began a long exile and trek for his congregation.”
The man is not a believer - period. That's why he hates the salvation and baptism dogmas, and constantly lies in a futile effort to attack them.
Topic: From RR to Sede (Read 1664 times)