Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: lewis on May 08, 2011, 08:41:24 PM
-
Came across this on Michael Dimond's hidden life . . . it is evidence in a big court case brought against him for being a fraud. Exhibit A has detail on this non-monk's sedate driving antics . . . recent crash . . . also goes into Michael Dimond's dirty bathroom with gross old dental floss and trash rotting in it. See Attachment:
-
-
I have lots of questions but on this hot topic that most won't touch with a ten foot pole, I have only one...
how does a 22year old have $1.5 million dollars?
:shocked:
My inclination is to be charitable towards the Brothers.
-
I have lots of questions but on this hot topic that most won't touch with a ten foot pole, I have only one...
how does a 22year old have $1.5 million dollars?
:shocked:
My inclination is to be charitable towards the Brothers.
Of course you actually have to be a real "Brother" first right? :fryingpan:
-
I capitalized Brothers as in a name, not necessarily a title.
They are not my cup of chai but my satandar just doesn't go off with them.
:devil2:
Anyway, I am here because of :heretic: and :heretic:.
You're a :heretic:
No you're a :heretic:
I know you're a :heretic: but what am I.
:stare:
its not 1.5 million but upwards of 1.6 million.
-
Through an inheritance, Darcy.
Or else he was one of those young CEOs they put on the cover of Business Week, but they're almost always Jews. It's sort of a taunt to make everyone else kill themselves trying to be multi-millionaires at 19, thinking there's something wrong with them if they aren't.
Quite admirable that he was willing to at least temporarily give up so much money to be a monk, too bad he was young and gullible and couldn't see they weren't real monks. He could have just taken his money and built himself his own makeshift monastery, why did he have to be with the Dimonds?
-
Getting off topic a bit, speaking of young rich people, what is with all of this Mark Zuckberg stuff, why did they make a movie about him as if he is unique? Does anyone remember that before Facebook there was Friendster? And before that, it was MySpace... THESE SITES ARE ALL THE SAME. Also, Facebook is wretched and overrated, it's glitchy, the interface stinks. Every time someone writes a comment, someone I know, it sends me an E-mail, cluttering up my inbox, as well as making my phone beep loudly in the middle of the night.
What exactly is the big innovation behind Facebook? There isn't one. Two years from now Facebook will be forgotten and we'll have the same site with a new name.
Back to the Dimonds --
-
What exactly is the big innovation behind Facebook? There isn't one. Two years from now Facebook will be forgotten and we'll have the same site with a new name.
Back to the Dimonds --
And getting back off topic- The big innovation- they've figured a way to use FB to invade your privacy- which is why I stay away. I don't think it'll be forgotten so easily- if it is, its only because they've got an identical or better site to target advertise us with... Thats all.
-
Lewis, it's Frederick Dimond, not Michael, who was accused of driving recklessly... By Eric Hoyle.
Also, you're David Hobson, aren't you? May want to change your style with the fonts.
-
Our privacy no longer exists and hasn't existed for some time, s2srea. No reason to be paranoid about that anymore, we're all watched all the time.
-
I'm not paranoid- I'm just not going to make it easier for someone to spam me.
-
Is the original post an example of detraction?
-
Is the original post an example of detraction?
Yes. I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.
-
Is the original post an example of detraction?
Yes. I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.
Is the reference to the public record detraction?
-
Is the original post an example of detraction?
Yes. I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.
Is the reference to the public record detraction?
Even reporting the public record is detraction if there is no need to report it to those who do not know. Report on their faulty theology and their penchant for "excommunicating" everyone on earth all you want. This is relevant. But I am absolutely certain that some saints may not have been perfect drivers and had poor personal hygene habits. On that last issue, just consider the Desert Fathers.
Yes. I think this entire topic is simply a matter of detraction.
-
Is the original post an example of detraction?
Yes. I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.
Is the reference to the public record detraction?
Even reporting the public record is detraction if there is no need to report it to those who do not know. Report on their faulty theology and their penchant for "excommunicating" everyone on earth all you want. This is relevant. But I am absolutely certain that some saints may not have been perfect drivers and had poor personal hygene habits. On that last issue, just consider the Desert Fathers.
Yes. I think this entire topic is simply a matter of detraction.
I'm not talking about the OP's comments, just the public docuмent. Why should it be hidden? Is it a sin to read it?
-
I would say that this is an act of detraction, considering it isn't something many people know about.
In any case, anyone who were to bring this up to the Dimonds I'm sure would be condemned by them. :rolleyes:
-
I would say that this is an act of detraction, considering it isn't something many people know about.
In any case, anyone who were to bring this up to the Dimonds I'm sure would be condemned by them. :rolleyes:
Should everybody know about a lawsuit against a “group” that solicits money from the public? Why is this considered detraction, as in an unjust disclosure?
-
It's a public docuмent. When something becomes public knowledge it is not detraction to talk about it. The entire traditional community knows the Dimonds are in court, okay?
Anyway, who can judge when something is known by enough people or not so that we can begin to discuss it. That's arbitrary.
I'd also like to point out, for those who have read or at least taken a peek at the court papers that were posted, they are actually those drawn up by the Dimonds' lawyer and so are favorable to the Dimonds, for the most part. Eric Hoyle is portrayed as pretty flaky. It was only lewis' spin that made it sound like the papers were anti-Dimond.
Mentioning publically-known sins is not detraction, nor is it detraction to expose sins that harm souls. "Lewis" ( probably David Hobson ) isn't really using detraction here for the reasons stated above, as well as the fact that he isn't talking about sins at all. Having a dirty bathroom was not a sin last time I checked, as for speeding, that's a grey area. He does show a gossipy mentality however.
-
Yeah, never mind. I guess I had forgotten about it and how public it was made. No detraction was committed.
-
I would say that this is an act of detraction, considering it isn't something many people know about.
In any case, anyone who were to bring this up to the Dimonds I'm sure would be condemned by them. :rolleyes:
Should everybody know about a lawsuit against a “group” that solicits money from the public? Why is this considered detraction, as in an unjust disclosure?
I stand corrected. This information is completely relevant for all potential donors who inspect the bathrooms and driving records of heads of all organizations to which they donate their wealth.
If you withhold your donations from your local SSPX (or other) chapel because you found dirty bathrooms and the priest is not a good driver, then this is clearly the kind of information you should seek. If, on the other hand, you decide to stop donating to your local chapel because the priest decided to invite the local Methodist minister in to give a Sunday sermon and blesses "gαy weddings", well that's a theological reason, thus the Dimonds' theology is what is relevant.
I have not downloaded or read the docuмents from the initial post. The only possible reason for doing so is to satisfy idle and prurient curiosity.
-
I would say that this is an act of detraction, considering it isn't something many people know about.
In any case, anyone who were to bring this up to the Dimonds I'm sure would be condemned by them. :rolleyes:
Should everybody know about a lawsuit against a “group” that solicits money from the public? Why is this considered detraction, as in an unjust disclosure?
I stand corrected. This information is completely relevant for all potential donors who inspect the bathrooms and driving records of heads of all organizations to which they donate their wealth.
If you withhold your donations from your local SSPX (or other) chapel because you found dirty bathrooms and the priest is not a good driver, then this is clearly the kind of information you should seek. If, on the other hand, you decide to stop donating to your local chapel because the priest decided to invite the local Methodist minister in to give a Sunday sermon and blesses "gαy weddings", well that's a theological reason, thus the Dimonds' theology is what is relevant.
I have not downloaded or read the docuмents from the initial post. The only possible reason for doing so is to satisfy idle and prurient curiosity.
Well, I actually read the public docuмent and paid no attention to the OP's own words. The very fact there is a lawsuit is reason for all potential donors to know what is in the public record. If that information discloses "dirty bathrooms" it makes little difference.
-
TKGS, are you listening to anyone here?
The docuмent has nothing to do with the OP, who put his own spin on it.
A case has been brought against the Dimonds, who are being made to look like thieves. If anything, the docuмent in question helps to give them the benefit of the doubt. This docuмent actually is from the Dimonds' lawyer.
-
Yes. I'm reading and understanding what everyone is saying. The only thing I am not clear on is the term, "OP". The person who made the initial post indicated that the docuмent detailed, among other things, a poor driving record and dirty bathrooms. This alone should have raised flags.
The Dimonds' were investigated for fraud by New York State civil officials because they, apparently, convinced a rich investment banker (if I remember rightly) to join their "monastery". One condition of joining was that he give all that he had to the "monastery". From this information, I concluded that this is how the Dimonds' funded the production and distribution (often for free) of some of their materials during the last few years.
The civil authorities can't, obviously, determine that they are not a religious institution. The L. Ron Hubbard case with the Church of Scientology has seen to that. U.S. civil courts simply cannot declare any self-professed religion not to be a religion and cannot intervene in a "religious community" if that community obeys the general civil laws. (The only reason the government was able to justify intervention of the "Branch Dividians" in Waco, TX was to allege violations of weapons laws.)
I never heard about any outcome to this investigation though it appears that the Dimonds' may have been cleared as this is apparently a civil case and the claimant is trying to recoup his ill-advised donation of all his worldly goods to the monastery. Obviously, he cannot require the court to determine whether or not the Dimonds' doctrines are Catholic, so he must use other means to discredit them before a judge and jury.
Even from what all have written, and especially from some of the comments, this entire topic has been, largely, an exercise in detraction (at best) and calumny (at worst).
-
TKGS, I was just speaking of what is in the public record. Are you saying we should hide what is in the public record?
-
TKGS, I was just speaking of what is in the public record. Are you saying we should hide what is in the public record?
Exactly, and Mr. Hoyle is not. M. Dimond's lawyer puts a spin on the opening part of the docuмent (naturally).
It appears that the Dimond brothers have a new attorney in this case. I get the impression that Mr. Hoyle's attorney has put them on the "defensive" (no pun intended).
I recall that Mr. Hoyle's attorney, who I have spoken with a few times, has repeatedly requested docuмentation from the
Dimond's "in good faith" and has received nothing. (Do any Cathinfo members have an update?)
It now appears that the court may require the Dimond's to actually produce some docuмentation about their financial dealings and their "legitimacy" (or lack of therein) as a Benedictine monastery.
Mr. Hoyle, a very bright person and ex-Feeneyite, is openly providing his financials. I applaud him for warning NY residents against a possible killer on the roads and most importantly, online.
-
TKGS, I was just speaking of what is in the public record. Are you saying we should hide what is in the public record?
No. I am not suggesting anything be kept hidden.
Against my better judgment, I did download and read the docuмent. This topic is still full of detraction by people who have made comments (especially the individual who started the topic).
As for having the State of New York decide whether Most Holy Family Monastery is a "real" monastery, I suggest the membership should consider whether it would be a good thing if the civil governments in the United States decided that they were competent authorities to determine whether the SSPX was a Catholic organization and whether the traditional Mass was truly a "valid" religious liturgy.
If just a small portion of what the docuмent presents is actually true, the case should be immediately dismissed. Since when does the charge of "fraud" require a defense if the one who charges the fraud has no evidence other than he gave the money? If your Society chapel spends your donations in a way you didn't think appropriate (e.g., they buy a new green chasuble even though the old green chasuble is perfectly fine in your opinion) did the chapel defraud you? If you decide your chapel's theological opinions are wrong, has the chapel defrauded you of all your donations? Is the State of New York competent to determine any of this?
There can only be one answer. No.
-
Methinks Lewis is the Hobgoblin.
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/jul09tcw.htm
N.Y. Man (Fred Dimond) Named In Million Dollar Federal Racketeering Case
3. Large Donor Eric E. Hoyle Finally Realized Fred ("Michael") Dimond Was A Heretic/Counterfeit Monk
TCW's Comment: Mr. Eric E. Hoyle, (a soul who was duped hook-line-and-sinker by Mr. Fred ("Michael") Dimond's deceptive and wicked propaganda) finally realized that the New York state resident Dimond was a fraud- by Dimond's "ordering" the attendence of his subjects/donors (like Holye) to Novus Ordo sect "masses" una cuм the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Antipope Ben 16. Hoyle then promptly left. Two others at this Feeneyite Den of Depravity "MHFM" in Fillmore, NY, also left the same day as Hoyle.
Hoyle has taken court action against the self-appointed "head" of "MHFM" (Fred Dimond) to recover damages and restitution citing (under US law) constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, monies had and received, violation of the federal civil RICO statute (Racketeering) deceptive trade practice and false advertising.
See: US Court Docuмent on the Case
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/hoyle-court-case-most-holy-family-monastery-michael-dimond.pdf
Go away lewis.
-
TKGS, I was just speaking of what is in the public record. Are you saying we should hide what is in the public record?
No. I am not suggesting anything be kept hidden.
Against my better judgment, I did download and read the docuмent. This topic is still full of detraction by people who have made comments (especially the individual who started the topic).
As for having the State of New York decide whether Most Holy Family Monastery is a "real" monastery, I suggest the membership should consider whether it would be a good thing if the civil governments in the United States decided that they were competent authorities to determine whether the SSPX was a Catholic organization and whether the traditional Mass was truly a "valid" religious liturgy.
If just a small portion of what the docuмent presents is actually true, the case should be immediately dismissed. Since when does the charge of "fraud" require a defense if the one who charges the fraud has no evidence other than he gave the money? If your Society chapel spends your donations in a way you didn't think appropriate (e.g., they buy a new green chasuble even though the old green chasuble is perfectly fine in your opinion) did the chapel defraud you? If you decide your chapel's theological opinions are wrong, has the chapel defrauded you of all your donations? Is the State of New York competent to determine any of this?
There can only be one answer. No.
The question is really whether this is in the public domain. If it is, then it is public. You seem to be suggesting unless we know what is in a public docuмent, we can't look at it without possible exposure to sin (at merely looking at it).
-
TKGS, I'm mostly concerned with the attitude that almost anything and everything can be claimed "off limits" by calling it detraction. Fr. Bazzkada and many others have suggested this and it really makes any judgment impossible because it assumes either the judgment is rash or the source is just a sinful detraction and should be ignored.
-
TKGS, I'm mostly concerned with the attitude that almost anything and everything can be claimed "off limits" by calling it detraction.
You misunderstand what I am saying. Much of the conversation in this topic has been an exercise in detraction. The reason I say this is because the topic itself started with this post:
Came across this on Michael Dimond's hidden life . . . it is evidence in a big court case brought against him for being a fraud. Exhibit A has detail on this non-monk's sedate driving antics . . . recent crash . . . also goes into Michael Dimond's dirty bathroom with gross old dental floss and trash rotting in it. See Attachment:
Notice lewis points out personal details; not theological points or civil infractions. The whole post is worded in a “guess what I heard about…” kind of way. Whether or not it is in the public record is irrelevant in the question of detraction. Something can be detraction even if everyone knows about it.
My question is how can it hurt souls if Michael Dimond has gross dental floss or rotting trash in his bathroom. I did not read the docuмent for the same reason I would not buy a supermarket tabloid with the headline “Star’s Biggest Secret Revealed”. In the end, the only reason I read the docuмent is because posters were telling me that the docuмent really wasn’t about all these things—-though this is what many of the posters were discussing.
Fr. Bazzkada and many others have suggested this [i.e., anything bad is detraction], and it really makes any judgment impossible because it assumes either the judgment is rash or the source is just a sinful detraction and should be ignored.
Though I don’t know who Fr. Bazzkada is (or are you talking about Fr. Cekada?), this has also been the tactic of the Conciliar church in recent years. Furthermore, though the detraction word hasn’t been used yet, it seems the SSPX is taking to this strategy in their recent threat of lawsuits over the Williamson-lawyer issue that was discussed on another topic.
Methinks Lewis is the Hobgoblin
There are a lot of hobgoblins here. Some of them are gossips and some of them are involved in the civil case. Who are the frauds? One fraud is the entire Conciliar establishment who has used donations to settle lawsuits and pay damages for their priests who have violated every tenet of its own canon law (even the new code). Should we demand that they refund all that we paid to them? Do we want the State of New York and other civil governments to destroy that sect in order to repay us because they are not, after all, “real priests”?
Is the Godless State to decide what is a real and what is a pretend religion? And do we want them to use speeding and poor personal hygiene as grounds to investigate?
The Dimond brothers engage in the art of detraction every week (or at least they used to in their “Heresy of the Week”, I haven’t looked at their website in ages). It is a shame that otherwise intelligent people who can actually discern when they are absolutely wrong on theological issues, believe that the best way to tear them down and destroy them is to expose, quite literally, their dirty laundry. The topic would have run its course very differently had it begun with a posting of the court docuмent (i.e., the public record) and the note that they are being sued by one of their donors for fraud. Of course, the docuмent doesn’t prove in any way fraud as it is from the Dimonds’ own lawyer. Discussion of the docuмent where fraud is alleged is clearly acceptable. Discussion of the Dimonds’ theological (and erroneous) principles is clearly acceptable. The other items discussed is clearly detraction and should be confessed.
-
TKGS, detraction is when you reveal a sin that didn't need to be revealed.
The first post by lewis doesn't qualify, because:
* He didn't reveal any sins, unless speeding is a sin, but even then it's only alleged speeding
* This is a court case and a matter of public record
You're saying we should confine ourselves to doctrinal issues, that sounds very pious, but actually we don't have to and we're not committing any sins by talking about personal affairs. By your logic it would be detraction every time someone mentioned a convicted child molester who works or worked in the Vatican II church. If the good of souls demands it, we can and even must reveal the most horrendous sins. But this incident doesn't apply.
Lewis i.e. David Hobson is someone with a penchant for gossip, that's for sure, but I can't see any detraction here. As for where it comes up in the other posts, you'll have to tell me. Perhaps it is in one of my following paragraphs.
David Hobson said:
"Mr. Hoyle, a very bright person and ex-Feeneyite, is openly providing his financials. I applaud him for warning NY residents against a possible killer on the roads and most importantly, online.
:laugh1:
I am interested to see the results of this case At first I was thinking Hoyle didn't stand a chance, but then when you realize that the Dimonds insisted he go to a Vatican II church... That completely goes against what any trad Catholic would expect if they joined up with the Dimonds. That may very well be fraud, though a kind of fraud hard to explain, if Hoyle can prove that their attendance at Vatican II masses wasn't made known on their website before a certain date, and I don't think it was.
The Dimonds apparently dress incognito and slip into this Eastern Rite Mass, that is my understanding. They are almost cartoonish, the way they write and behave.
-
That completely goes against what any trad Catholic would expect if they joined up with the Dimonds.
They encourage people to seek the sacraments from priests ordained by valid rite. Just not SSPX. Sacramentalist Feeneyites.
-
Though I don’t know who Fr. Bazzkada is (or are you talking about Fr. Cekada?), this has also been the tactic of the Conciliar church in recent years. Furthermore, though the detraction word hasn’t been used yet, it seems the SSPX is taking to this strategy in their recent threat of lawsuits over the Williamson-lawyer issue that was discussed on another topic.
Yes, Fr. Bazzkada is who you think he is. In fact, Fr. Cekada appears to be lobbying the conciliar establishment in Indianapolis in an attempt to damage to another traditional Bishop. More indication of the fraudulent traditionalism of Dolan/Cekada or is Fr. C a closet conciliarist?
-
Discussion of the docuмent where fraud is alleged is clearly acceptable.
Agreed. I don't really care what Hobson says, but the public record is the public record.
-
Methinks Lewis is the Hobgoblin
There are a lot of hobgoblins here.
When I said Hobgoblin, I meant DAVID HOBSON. He is known as "The Hobgoblin."
-
Methinks Lewis is the Hobgoblin
There are a lot of hobgoblins here.
When I said Hobgoblin, I meant DAVID HOBSON. He is known as "The Hobgoblin."
Since I have absolutely no idea who David Hobson is, I used the term as it would be commonly understood.
I searched "David Hobson" on an internet search engine and found that David Hobson is a famous Australian opera singer. He is also a former U.S. Congressman. He is also one of several professions that would give me no reason to equate his name with a traditional Catholic forum. Is this a person that I should know and don't only because I am uninformed?
-
Theological Implications: It is no small issue that Mr. Hoyle left over being forced to attend new order "masses" una cuм an anti-pope; as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: it is from the Sovereign Pontiff that depends every man's union with Jesus Christ through the sacraments, and consequently his supernatural life and eternal salvation.
Aquinas Text Imprimatur
Why does this supreme power in the order of jurisdiction
belong to the Sovereign Pontiff?
Because the perfect unity of the Church demands that
this supreme power should belong to him alone. For
this reason Jesus Christ charged Simon Peter to feed
His flock; and the Roman Pontiff is the one and only
legitimate successor of St. Peter unto the end of time
(XL. 6).
It is then from the Sovereign Pontiff that depends every
man's union with Jesus Christ through the sacraments, and
consequently his supernatural life and eternal salvation?
Yes; for although it is true that the grace of Jesus
Christ is not in an absolute way dependent upon the
reception of the sacraments themselves when it is
impossible to receive them, at least in the case of
adults and that the action of the Holy Ghost can supplement
this defect provided the person is not in bad faith; it is,
on the other hand, absolutely certain that no one who
separates himself knowingly from communion with the
Sovereign Pontiff can participate in the grace of Jesus
Christ, and that in consequence if he dies in that state
he is irremediably lost.
-
They encourage people to seek the sacraments from priests ordained by valid rite. Just not SSPX. Sacramentalist Feeneyites.
They do not discriminate merely against the SSPX, but against everyone who does not assent to their ridiculous errors.
The ultimate conclusion of their "anathemas" is "home-alonism." At the very least, they alienate souls from those clerics whom they need as Father Confessors and Spiritual Directors and from other Catholics whose companionship and counsel could be of great assistance in their struggle to persevere in the profession and practice of the faith.
The fact that they attend SSPX Masses or Oriental Rite liturgies whilst attacking them and "excommunicating" them is utter hypocrisy.
-
The Catholic Church existed in Japan without clergy from for close to 250 years (1620 to 1865). It was persecuted without remission. It carried on through baptisms and marriages. These isolated Japanese Catholics belonged fully to the Church.
Also, in early pioneer times in the United States, Catholic priests would travel on horse back to go to small isolated towns to bless (or not) holy young Catholic couples (marriages) that had deeply prayed and then had begun to live together, hoping to be fruitful and multiply. I have been told by a bishop that this "US pioneer model" is acceptable today, during these terrible days of the apostasy.
-
The Catholic Church existed in Japan without clergy from for close to 250 years (1620 to 1865). It was persecuted without remission. It carried on through baptisms and marriages. These isolated Japanese Catholics belonged fully to the Church.
Also, in early pioneer times in the United States, Catholic priests would travel on horse back to go to small isolated towns to bless (or not) holy young Catholic couples (marriages) that had deeply prayed and then had begun to live together, hoping to be fruitful and multiply. I have been told by a bishop that this "US pioneer model" is acceptable today, during these terrible days of the apostasy.
What bishop told you this?
-
SJB:
He is involved in the underground (One) Church. He was preparing to meet the flock in another country and to possibly ordain a candidate to holy orders that the Catholics there had thought quite eligible. We were traveling to get a specific out of print Pontificali Romano which we fortunately were able to obtain!
Around this time, in general, is when the discussion of the topics above were addressed. This bishop also told me that the when the Masons want to get someone they do. I will refrain from typing his name at this time in this forum.
Our Lady of La Salette Help Us!
-
SJB:
He is involved in the underground (One) Church. He was preparing to meet the flock in another country and to possibly ordain a candidate to holy orders that the Catholics there had thought quite eligible. We were traveling to get a specific out of print Pontificali Romano which we fortunately were able to obtain!
Around this time, in general, is when the discussion of the topics above were addressed. This bishop also told me that the when the Masons want to get someone they do. I will refrain from typing his name at this time in this forum.
Our Lady of La Salette Help Us!
This is a bit cryptic. Is he a NO bishop who could be identified?
-
This is a bit cryptic. Is he a NO bishop who could be identified?
Huh? Are you serious?
He is not part of the Freemasonic usurpers and their modernist/тαℓмυdic anti-religion sect!
“When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption, and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish…”
-Ven. Anne-Catherine Emmerich, Prophecy on April 22, 1823
-
This is a bit cryptic. Is he a NO bishop who could be identified?
Huh? Are you serious?
He is not part of the Freemasonic usurpers and their modernist/тαℓмυdic anti-religion sect!
“When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption, and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish…”
-Ven. Anne-Catherine Emmerich, Prophecy on April 22, 1823
Who "sent" him?
-
Who "sent" him?
He possesses the proper papal mandate. He did not ordain this young man on his trip.
-
Who's papal mandate?
-
Who's papal mandate?
Again, here is another instance where it is not prudent to print a holy prelate's name.
I did mis-type above: and meant to write:
"This bishop also told me that when the Masons want to get someone, they do."
-
No, I'm asking what pope gave the mandate.
-
Methinks Lewis is the Hobgoblin
There are a lot of hobgoblins here.
When I said Hobgoblin, I meant DAVID HOBSON. He is known as "The Hobgoblin."
Since I have absolutely no idea who David Hobson is, I used the term as it would be commonly understood.
I searched "David Hobson" on an internet search engine and found that David Hobson is a famous Australian opera singer. He is also a former U.S. Congressman. He is also one of several professions that would give me no reason to equate his name with a traditional Catholic forum. Is this a person that I should know and don't only because I am uninformed?
:roll-laugh1:
No, Hobson is the guy that runs the "hierarchy in exile website" series on Siri supposedly being the real pope at (and I hate giving him publicity because he doesn't deserve anything. He's a pathological liar and a libel spreading fool.) http://www.todayscatholicworld.com
-
The election of Pope Siri( Gregory XVII) is Alot bigger than only D Hobson.
-
The election of Pope Siri( Gregory XVII) is Alot bigger than only D Hobson.
Siri is dead.
-
The Catholic Church existed in Japan without clergy from for close to 250 years (1620 to 1865). It was persecuted without remission. It carried on through baptisms and marriages. These isolated Japanese Catholics belonged fully to the Church.
Also, in early pioneer times in the United States, Catholic priests would travel on horse back to go to small isolated towns to bless (or not) holy young Catholic couples (marriages) that had deeply prayed and then had begun to live together, hoping to be fruitful and multiply. I have been told by a bishop that this "US pioneer model" is acceptable today, during these terrible days of the apostasy.
Those were exceptional cases.
Without necessarily implying that this was the intention that motivated such comments on your part, such are the arguments often posited by home-aloners and schismatic extremists, who cite the cases of the Japanese Catholics and the Catholics in the early history of the American Republic in order to justify a Catholic life without clergy nowadays. Such comments presented as sweeping generalizations are misleading and have wreaked much havoc in the public and private lives of many individual Catholics.
There are several differences between those cases and the present day (that is, in most areas of the United States, for I know not regarding other places) that need to be considered:
1) Although at times difficult, it is not impossible for most people to have to recourse to a Priest for the Sacraments, at least on a monthly basis (or thereabouts) in extreme circuмstances, thanks to the relative ease in transportation and communication here in the States in the present day era.
2) The codification of Canon Law, which has systematized and clarified the disciplinary norms of the Church, the past teachings of Papal Encyclical Letters and theologians, together with the proliferation of Catechisms, approved books, &c., have made it relatively easier for individual Catholics to exercise discretion and prudence regarding matters pertaining to the profession and practice of the traditional Catholic faith. The internet in this regard may play a very useful role, if consulted with due caution.
3) There are numerous clerics, either independent or associated with some group or another, who are validly ordained, Seminary trained, and possess the aptitude of dispensing the Sacraments and guiding souls in the capacity of Spiritual Directors. No private study course, library, or private prayer life (no matter how elevated or fervent) can ever replace such a cleric, if indeed it is morally possible for one to contact such a Priest.
I personally believe that the "home-alonism" that the Dimonds, Matatics, and other extremists ultimately postulate is more perilous and novel than what some of the more cogent conservative N.O.-ers posit as the solution to the current crisis. What Matthew told a banned member of the forum who advocated home-alonism (something to the effect that it would ultimately lead him to moral disorder in its basest forms) is something I have witnessed time and time again.
-
Canon law teaches jurisdiction comes from a pope. The phrase "independent priest" is one of the most novel/schismatic terms I have ever heard invented.
-
Canon law teaches jurisdiction comes from a pope. The phrase "independent priest" is one of the most novel/schismatic terms I have ever heard invented.
How about this from the Freemasons, Hobgoblin?
32. Declared that all dogma, but papal infallibility, opinions are free. Proclaim that Jesus Christ was essentially a failed revolutionary. Announced that the Christ will soon come true, and that so far only the anti-pope must be obeyed.
Maybe I should have posted this in Italian and made you look it up yourself. Go and defame people somewhere else.
Wait... just don't. Just. Go away.
http://www.chiesaviva.com/la%20massoneria.pdf
-
"Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their (the modernists) slave. ... common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth." -St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis
-
The election of Pope Siri( Gregory XVII) is Alot bigger than only D Hobson.
Siri is dead.
SJB: Logically, acceptance of the "Siri Thesis" includes that the gates of Hell could not prevail against him (and his office).
-
Canon law teaches jurisdiction comes from a pope. The phrase "independent priest" is one of the most novel/schismatic terms I have ever heard invented.
Who is the pope then? Is he now the invisible head of a visible Church? Now that is a novelty.
-
The election of Pope Siri( Gregory XVII) is Alot bigger than only D Hobson.
Siri is dead.
SJB: Logically, acceptance of the "Siri Thesis" includes that the gates of Hell could not prevail against him (and his office).
Siri is dead.
-
There is a historical precedent of at least one "non-visible pope", or what could be called a "pope in eclipse", before. He prudently hid himself for approximately eight years in the catacombs, in perfect uniformity with God's Will. That Holy Father was declared a saint and intercedes for the true Church Militant today.
-
These visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerick she received from Heaven in 1820, seem to shed more light on this exact subject:
July, 1820
“I saw the Holy Father surrounded by traitors and in great distress about the Church. …Then I saw darkness spreading around and people no longer seeking the true Church.”
October, 1820
“As I was going through Rome with St. Francoise and the other saint, we saw a great palace engulfed in flames from top to bottom. I was very much afraid that the occupants would be burned to death because no one came forward to put out the fire. As we came nearer, however, the fire abated and we saw the blackened building. We went through a number of magnificent rooms (untouched by the fire), and we finally reached the Pope. He was sitting in the dark and slept in a large arm-chair. He was very ill and weak; he could no longer walk. The ecclesiastics in the inner circle looked insincere and lacking in zeal; I did not like them. I told the Pope of the bishops who are to be appointed soon. I told him also that he must not leave Rome. If he did so, it would be chaos. He thought that the evil was inevitable and that he should leave in order to save many things beside himself. He was very much inclined to leave Rome, and he was insistently urged to do so. ..."
-
There is a historical precedent of at least one "non-visible pope", or what could be called a "pope in eclipse", before. He prudently hid himself for approximately eight years in the catacombs, in perfect uniformity with God's Will. That Holy Father was declared a saint and intercedes for the true Church Militant today.
If the pope is in eclipse, then the Church is also in eclipse.
-
If the pope is in eclipse, then the Church is also in eclipse.
Correct
-
If the pope is in eclipse, then the Church is also in eclipse.
Correct
So you can't know who has been "sent."
-
The election of Pope Siri( Gregory XVII) is Alot bigger than only D Hobson.
Siri is dead.
SJB: Logically, acceptance of the "Siri Thesis" includes that the gates of Hell could not prevail against him (and his office).
So if one does not accept the Siri Thesis then they hold the position that the gates of Hell have prevailed? And didn't Siri accept the Vatican II changes?
-
If the pope is in eclipse, then the Church is also in eclipse.
Correct
So you can't know who has been "sent."
SJB, perhaps this may help? There is great information in this 19th Century Catholic book titled: CATHI PETRI. The passage here addresses the caution used even by Popes at times, of proclaiming their person.
The author starts with a refutation of many Protestants, who tried to deny the lineal descent of her (Rome's) Bishops from St. Peter (to the present):
"Protestant writers constantly refer to the silence of Pope Clement I. on thiis point when he is writing to the Corinthians, A.D. 98; but they overlook the very obvious fact, that during the age of persecutions the Popes must naturally have shrunk from loudly asserting their prerogatives, or putting themselves forward more prominently than they could help. Why should they have exposed themselves unnecessarily to the danger of immediate martyrdom, by proclaiming facts, sufficiently well known to all the faithful, in docuмents open to the inspection of all, and which would certainly be used as evidence against them by the heathen authorities?
This consideration fully accounts for St. CLEMENT writing in the name of the Church of Rome, and keeping silence regarding his own prerogatives as its Bishop; for St. IGNATIUS-himself on his way to martyrdom in Rome-observing a like reticence in regard to the chief Pastor, when he writes to "the Church which there presides in the Covenant of Love;" and for St. IRENAEUS speaking, in terms which would not be too intelligible to the enemies of Christianity, of the "potentiorem principalitatem" which necessitated the communion of all other Churches with the Apostolic See.
TERTULLIAN, after his lapse into heresy, seems to break through this policy of reserve when (De Pudicitia, c. I) he declaims against "the peremptory edict put forth by the Chief Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops" (the title of "PONTIFEX MAXIMUS," applied to a Christian Bishop, being especially calculated to give offence to the civil power); yet even he abstains from mentioning the Pope by name, or too directly, and so exciting the heathen authorities against him. He ets us know, however, that the Pope referred to (Zephyrinus) did claim and exercise supreme authority as St. Peter's successor, and that this authority was acknowledged by the Catholic Church-just as much as was the power of absolution or the authority of Bishops, which to the Montanists were equally objectionable (Ib. c. 21)." (CATHI PETRI, OR THE TITLES AND PREROGATIVES OF ST. PETER AND OF HIS SEE AND SUCCESSORS, AS DESCRIBED BY THE EARLY FATHERS ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, AND COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH. P. 111, LONDON: BURNS AND OATES, 1883 A.D.)
-
If the pope is in eclipse, then the Church is also in eclipse.
Correct
So you can't know who has been "sent."
You don't need a prophesy to answer this.
-
You don't need a prophesy to answer this.
Correct again. Did you see the excerpt from Cathi Petri?
-
You don't need a prophesy to answer this.
Correct again. Did you see the excerpt from Cathi Petri?
Okay, I'll call you "The Riddler" from now on. The point is that you claim to know the unknown.
-
What does a Dimond brother getting into a car accident long ago have to do with matters of the faith?
I've seen stupid thread topics before, but this one takes the cake.
This thread topic is nothing more than Gossip and Calumny which are both sins.
We are all Catholics, we are suppose to be better than this. Shame on us all. :facepalm:
-
It wouldn't be considered gossip as it has is a well-docuмented thing.
-
The aftermath of when the Dimonds left their Berlin, NJ "monastery" is important to note. Eyewitnesses who went into clean the place up saw: a LARGE amount of cash stuffed in a mattress, uncashed checks from donors, and also holy vestments strewn all over the floor. (The scene looked like someone was fleeing . . . ) I knew one of the cleaners very well at one time (we travelled Europe together), who saw the carnage.
Mr. Hoyle in the court docuмent states that they (the Dimonds) were making "appeals" but had lots of $ . . . the person (filmmaker) who did a lot of their videos said to me: "Michael Dimond is a cold blooded money-making-machine."
-
David Hobson, do you have any idea how you sound? You sound like a nosy old lady on her front stoop who grabs passersby with a "Psst, did you hear?" and pulls them to the side to tell them the latest dirt in the neighborhood.
-
Anne Catherine Emmerich said:
October, 1820
“As I was going through Rome with St. Francoise and the other saint, we saw a great palace engulfed in flames from top to bottom. I was very much afraid that the occupants would be burned to death because no one came forward to put out the fire. As we came nearer, however, the fire abated and we saw the blackened building. We went through a number of magnificent rooms (untouched by the fire), and we finally reached the Pope. He was sitting in the dark and slept in a large arm-chair. He was very ill and weak; he could no longer walk. The ecclesiastics in the inner circle looked insincere and lacking in zeal; I did not like them. I told the Pope of the bishops who are to be appointed soon. I told him also that he must not leave Rome. If he did so, it would be chaos. He thought that the evil was inevitable and that he should leave in order to save many things beside himself. He was very much inclined to leave Rome, and he was insistently urged to do so. ..."
This is clearly speaking of St. Pius X, I am sure of it. This is kind of uncanny, because I've often thought what I would do if I was in his shoes, sensing an inevitable evil to come, as I know he did, and I also thought of how maybe he should have left Rome, which most likely was totally under the financial power of the Jews ( hence the inevitable evil, because it feels like many 19th century-20th century Popes were constrained to not tell the full truth about what was going on, this is the only explanation for their near-silence on the putrid democracies that were springing up all over ). I guess Ms. Emmerich doesn't agree, but I'm not sure why.
Things were much worse at that time than people realize. If there is any validity to any "prisoner in the Vatican" myth, it is in his case. The three true Popes who followed, while real Popes, were not strong like that, not intense and pure in the same way.
Are you trying to say this refers to Siri, Mr. Hobson? So the prophecy refers to an invisible Pope who has to decide whether or not to leave Rome? No one knew he was Pope so why would it matter, why would that cause chaos? If you stopped to think and really wanted the truth, rather than sell your pet theory, you would see your thesis has more holes than Swiss cheese.
-
Lewis,
There is a historical precedent of at least one "non-visible pope", or what could be called a "pope in eclipse", before. He prudently hid himself for approximately eight years in the catacombs, in perfect uniformity with God's Will. That Holy Father was declared a saint and intercedes for the true Church Militant today.
And who was that?
-
Anne Catherine Emmerich said:
October, 1820
“As I was going through Rome with St. Francoise and the other saint, we saw a great palace engulfed in flames from top to bottom. I was very much afraid that the occupants would be burned to death because no one came forward to put out the fire. As we came nearer, however, the fire abated and we saw the blackened building. We went through a number of magnificent rooms (untouched by the fire), and we finally reached the Pope. He was sitting in the dark and slept in a large arm-chair. He was very ill and weak; he could no longer walk. The ecclesiastics in the inner circle looked insincere and lacking in zeal; I did not like them. I told the Pope of the bishops who are to be appointed soon. I told him also that he must not leave Rome. If he did so, it would be chaos. He thought that the evil was inevitable and that he should leave in order to save many things beside himself. He was very much inclined to leave Rome, and he was insistently urged to do so. ..."
This is clearly speaking of St. Pius X, I am sure of it.
Pius X was a "public" pope.
August 10, 1820
Venerable Anne-Catherine Emmerich Vision of the true impeded/hidden pope:
"He (the pope) can now trust but few people. That is mainly why he is hiding."
“Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father immersed in his sorrow, is still hiding to ELUDE dangerous demands (made upon him by his captors). He is still very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares and prayers. He can now trust but few people. That is mainly why he is hiding. But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend and because of his simplicity they did not think it would be worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. It was required of me to inform him while he was praying, of the traitors and evil doers who were to be found among the high ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it”
“I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before and he admits only a limited number of friends near him. I fear that the Holy Father will suffer many more trials before he dies. I see that the false Church of darkness is making progress and I see the dreadful influence it has on the people. The Holy Father and the Church are verily in so great a distress that one must implore God night and day…”
“I have been told to pray much for the Church and the (lawful) Pope…The people must pray earnestly for the extirpation (destruction) of the dark church (and its antipope).”
============
"I saw one of my successors taking to flight over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in DISGUISE somewhere; and after a short retirement he will die a cruel death." (Prophecy of Pius X, who was publicly declared a saint)
-
Lewis,
There is a historical precedent of at least one "non-visible pope", or what could be called a "pope in eclipse", before. He prudently hid himself for approximately eight years in the catacombs, in perfect uniformity with God's Will. That Holy Father was declared a saint and intercedes for the true Church Militant today.
And who was that?
Pope Saint Caius
-
their (the Dimond's) ridiculous errors.
I would add DAMNING Error(s)!
Here is content from a Dimond Brothers video from Berlin, NJ; they don't want known ... actually I will start a new thread.
They are heretics and may be Marrano's ...
"Our enemies have on this been under no misapprehensions. From the outset, and with the greatest clearness of vision, they determined on their objective; first to separate you from Us and the Chair of Peter, and then to sow disorder among you." -Pope, St. Pius X
-
Thank you, Lewis.
-
Well, he is right that the Dimonds are highly dangerous. What strikes me about them is that their website is so prominent for two non-monk nobodies. There's no way to know if they are Marranos or infiltrators or not, though, as with so many people, it suffices to know they are spreading poisonous ideas and to stay away from their site. I was infected myself, though never becoming a full-blown Feeneyite ( see my sig ).
-
However, was I really infected by the Dimonds, or by the devil directly, and I just used the Dimonds to bolster my supposed case?
Because of my whole experience with scrupulosity, I know that many of these people who say ridiculous things are not Marranos, but are mostly battling with pride. I think the devil makes certain people WANT to be the last Catholic on Earth -- it makes them feel heroic.
It is noticeable to me that some of the smartest people are in the most danger. The Dimonds are very smart; Gerry Matatics is very smart; I am no pea-brain myself. Something else I've noticed is that those who try to be notable laymen, who go on the lecture circuit, who make YouTube videos, put themselves more at risk of intellectual pride ( not to say vanity ). Someone like John Lane became a notable layman very naturally, but others thrust themselves out there in a really pushy way, like Gerry Matatics. He was apparently well-known as a Protestant and it's like, as soon as he became Catholic, he has to go around lecturing, he has to be an authority. Was that God's will?
I'd say all these little home-alone movements are caused by intellectual pride rather than infiltrators. It's about people desiring to be the center of attention and then contriving some excuse to make it happen, some new theory to get others to rally around. I'm sure many heretics started like this, just wanting to be original and get noticed. It's like you feel you need validation for your intelligence, so you break with God's will and you step out on your own, you trick yourself into thinking you have some mission that you don't have.
The solution, as St. Augustine says -- who was not unlike Gerry Matatics at all, a man very vulnerable to intellectual pride, as a quick glance at his painfully prolonged conversion shows -- is "If thou wouldst be great, make thyself the least first." It is other people who will decide if we are great, if we should be listened to, not ourselves. Many saints gradually built respect over long years of good works and sermons, after shunning the limelight it was thrust upon them. Today people do the opposite, they seek the limelight.
-
However, was I really infected by the Dimonds, or by the devil directly, and I just used the Dimonds to bolster my supposed case?
Because of my whole experience with scrupulosity, I know that many of these people who say ridiculous things are not Marranos, but are mostly battling with pride. I think the devil makes certain people WANT to be the last Catholic on Earth -- it makes them feel heroic.
It is noticeable to me that some of the smartest people are in the most danger. The Dimonds are very smart; Gerry Matatics is very smart; I am no pea-brain myself. Something else I've noticed is that those who try to be notable laymen, who go on the lecture circuit, who make YouTube videos, put themselves more at risk of intellectual pride ( not to say vanity ). Someone like John Lane became a notable layman very naturally, but others thrust themselves out there in a really pushy way, like Gerry Matatics. He was apparently well-known as a Protestant and it's like, as soon as he became Catholic, he has to go around lecturing, he has to be an authority. Was that God's will?
I'd say all these little home-alone movements are caused by intellectual pride rather than infiltrators. It's about people desiring to be the center of attention and then contriving some excuse to make it happen, some new theory to get others to rally around. I'm sure many heretics started like this, just wanting to be original and get noticed. It's like you feel you need validation for your intelligence, so you break with God's will and you step out on your own, you trick yourself into thinking you have some mission that you don't have.
The solution, as St. Augustine says -- who was not unlike Gerry Matatics at all, a man very vulnerable to intellectual pride, as a quick glance at his painfully prolonged conversion shows -- is "If thou wouldst be great, make thyself the least first." It is other people who will decide if we are great, if we should be listened to, not ourselves. Many saints gradually built respect over long years of good works and sermons, after shunning the limelight it was thrust upon them. Today people do the opposite, they seek the limelight.
My comment regards 'infiltrators'. I agree that the loners are likely besieged with pride as you describe and those that follow are afflicted with a sort of idolatrous guru worship or severe anxiety that manifests as scrupulosity.
The infiltrators would not have much need for smallish movements but are much more likely to be in larger movements that are gaining ground. Movements that are flesh and blood, where people really get out and talk to each other in person.
That is because relationships that form in person are more likely to be stronger.