Did the Brother's Dimond think none their following would realize they leave out the bolded part of the quote out?

The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

They really have some gall using this quote against BOD while gutting the first and last sentence of it.  Incredible!

You posted no reference to the original source, and no reference to the Dimond's book and page where they use the quote. It may be that your source is lying. When you make an unsubstantiated accusation like this, it is slander. It is obvious that you despise the Dimond's, control your emotions and do your homework before you go posting headlines.

You are for sure slandering them in the title of your thread by calling them non-Catholic. It's ironic that you consider baptized Catholics (Dimonds and Novus Ordo Catholics) to be non-Catholics, but you consider unbaptized persons who have no explicit belief in Christ to be members of the Church, hence Catholics.

The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

They really have some gall using this quote against BOD while gutting the first and last sentence of it.  Incredible!

Dimonds admit that Father Jurgens later rejects this quote. Nevertheless, the second sentence has absolutely NOTHING to do with the first about infants.  "Invincible ignorance and physical impossibility" have absolutely nothing to do with the "state of infants", and so it's obvious that Father Jurgens has disgressed into a statement of principle for adults.  It was a flow of consciousness to a related point and not a logical continuity and reference to "state of infants".

I invite you to call out Father Laisney's lie that that was not "one dissenting voice" among the Church Fathers, and his convenient use of ellipses in quotations.

Jesus stated that the unbaptized go to hell. Call Jesus a liar all you want too. Provide me the quote where Jesus says unbaptized infants go to heaven then we will talk.

Peter Dimond stated in one of his videos that he did not believe in limbo but that he believed that babies go to a part of hell where there is no fire.

 If you want to debate the issue I can give you a slew of other quotes where they conveniently leave out parts of quotes that undermine their false position.  

Why don't you provide just ONE example, this one. You have not provided anything but unsubstantiated slander here, read below:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Did the Brother's Dimond think none their following would realize they leave out the bolded part of the quote out?

The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

They really have some gall using this quote against BOD while gutting the first and last sentence of it.  Incredible!

You posted no reference to the original source, and no reference to the Dimond's book and page where they use the quote. It may be that your source is lying. When you make an unsubstantiated accusation like this, it is slander. It is obvious that you despise the Dimond's, control your emotions and do your homework before you go posting headlines.

You are for sure slandering them in the title of your thread by calling them non-Catholic. It's ironic that you consider baptized Catholics (Dimonds and Novus Ordo Catholics) to be non-Catholics, but you consider unbaptized persons who have no explicit belief in Christ to be members of the Church, hence Catholics.

In bold below is what Dimond leaves out in his book "There is absolutely no ,Salvation Outside the Church, that is the reference for the quotes:

St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: "Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it… I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less because it was not through wickedness as much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will be neither glorified nor punished by the just Judge; for though unsealed they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as persons who have suffered a loss… If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?"

More left out by Dimond in bold:

Fr. Michael Müller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888: "The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.

   Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. 'Invincible ignorance,' says St. Thomas Aquinas, 'is a punishment for sin.' (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.

   But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.

   Hence Pius IX. said 'that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault.'

   Almighty God, who is just and condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means.

Can anyone assert with a strait face that the Dimonds do not take quotes out of context in order to convince their readers to think as they do?  They quote people that teach the opposite of what they teach but take out the parts that contradicts their heresies.  

Of the Doctors of the Church, no one (at least of anything like a Catholic frame of mind) could ever deny that St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest, even the "Angelic Doctor," a title given to no other. And needless to say, he too has weighed in at some length upon the Baptism of Blood and Desire issue. As I have done before, I prefer to present his comments at some length, so that one may see the most crucial quotes in their true context, and understand them as much as possible, in the sense he originally intended. Then I will explore the manner in which tiny portions are quoted or misquoted in the Treatise so as to create a false impression.

    For those not familiar with the Summa Theologica, I should tell you that it takes a format somewhat strange to modern readers, but once one sees what the format actually is, one sees the same format being repeated in cookie-cutter-like fashion in the Sainted Doctor's entire Summa. In writing the Summa, it was his goal to make even the most subtle and abstruse doctrinal concepts accessible to the ordinary reader. The format, once one get's used to it, is actually quite nice and makes for interesting reading regarding whatever question is being addressed.

    Each numbered "Article" starts with a Title, framed in the manner of a question (much like found in many catechisms today such as the Baltimore Catechism, and also the Radio Replies series). Then there comes a numbered series of "Objections" to the Catholic position (usually about three but sometimes more and rarely, fewer). These objections may be culled from casual questions heard in the street, the writings of heretics or various other heterodox or unorthodox persons, or even from rival schools of theological thought or saintly writings that have been decided against. Some may even have been posited by himself in a hypothetical fashion, e. g. "What if somebody were to ask…," or "I suppose somebody could say..." After the objections comes an "On the contrary" in which the standard Church position, culled from the Fathers, the Popes and Councils, or catechisms, or other contemporary sources of doctrinal teaching is then given. This is the Church's standard "position" regarding the question, as was commonly given in his own day. Following that St. Thomas adds his own further commentary and enlargement of the Church's position with his "I answer that" in which he discusses the question more thoroughly but still in general terms. At the last comes his "Replies to Objections" in which he directly addresses the various objections, item by item, in a numbered series in which the numbers match the number assigned to the objection being responded to.

    There are three such articles which directly address the issues pertinent to BOB and BOD, plus several others which also have some bearing on this issue. I start here with the main three articles, one at a time, in full:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66: Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.

    I cannot imagine a more clear and explicit description of BOB and BOD exactly as the Church has always taught, but nowhere quite so clear as here. And this is in the words of probably the greatest Doctor of the Church. One should think that this alone should be the end of any denials of BOB and BOD, and the writer of the Treatise to be at quite a loss to deal with this. As it is, his response is quite disingenuous, actually going so far as to try to slur the good name and orthodoxy of the Sainted Doctor.

    Latching on to nothing more than one tiny extract from the above, he attempts to "prove" that St. Thomas Aquinas taught the absurdity of "three baptisms," as if he were somehow unaware that there is only "one faith, one baptism." See here with what brutality he tortures the words of the Angelic Doctor:

In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11, St. Thomas tries to explain his belief in baptism of desire and blood. He tries to explain how there can be "three baptisms" (water, blood and desire) when St. Paul declares in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one. He says:
"The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and of the Holy Ghost."
With all due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the objection as to how there can be "three baptisms" when God reveals that there is only one. It is feeble because St. Thomas says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are included in the baptism of water; but this is false.
    But having now seen the quote in full, can you not see that the whole absurd notion of "three baptisms" is introduced, not by St. Thomas himself, but by his Objector(s), the first two of which are raising exactly the same false claim that Fr. Feeney and Peter Dimond and others like them today, who deny BOB and BOD, always raise. In no way is the Angelic Doctor endorsing here their claim to BOB and BOD making for "three baptisms" as though the well-known fact of there being only "one faith, one baptism" would refute BOB and BOD. In only two places (once in his "I answer that" and once in his "Reply to objection 1") does St. Thomas use the word "baptisms" with the plural with regards to directly addressing the absurd claim of the objector who so used the plural. In a third place (in his "Reply to objection 2") he deliberately omits the word but merely says "The other two" but omitting the word "baptisms" to avoid repeating such a sacrilege a third time. It is exactly as if he meant to put quotation marks around the phrase (but in the 1200's writers didn't do this sort of thing) exactly as Fr. François Laisney of the SSPX does in his article about the three errors of those who follow Fr. Feeney. Properly, if this had been a common practice in his day, the sentence quoted in the Treatise should have read, "The other two 'Baptisms' are included in the Baptism of Water…"

    More importantly, St. Thomas has here acknowledged the Scripture regarding "one faith, one baptism" and in no way repudiated it, even while responding to the objection that introduced this scriptural passage. So it is useless to speculate "what St. Thomas would have said if he had lived until the dogmatic Council of Vienne in 1311" since he clearly showed here no need to wait until that Council to be aware of that dogmatic fact. He would have maintained exactly the same teaching, and with exactly the same wording. Hence it is possible (and certain in the next section) that he would only have employed the plural word "baptisms" as a shorthand for "modes of receiving the one baptism." And the plural of baptism could also refer to separate baptismal events, as for example "We had two baptisms today. We baptized Jim and then we baptized Suzan." (And that's if he actually did say "baptisms" since, for all I know, it is even possible that the translation may have been somewhat sloppy here.) The third objection regarding multiple baptisms (namely of John, or of the Flood, etc.) has no bearing on the question of BOB and BOD, but rather shows an opposite error also possible in this area, together with the Saint's response to it. I included it here only for completeness.

    And what problem has the author of the Treatise with St. Thomas' statement to the effect that the "other two" are included in the Baptism of Water? He continues, "One who receives baptism of water doesn't receive baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of desire advocates. Therefore, it is false to say, as St. Thomas does, that the other two baptisms are included in the baptism of water; they most certainly are not." Well excuse me, but there is not a single "baptism of desire advocate" who would dare to deny what St. Thomas has taught here, for it is in fact quite obvious that the "other two" most certainly are included in the Baptism of Water. How so? Desire is included in that there must be a desire to be baptized on the part of the person (or of their parents and godparents on their behalf in the case of infants) to be baptized, else the Church will not baptize the person. So right there is the desire. And the Sacrament of Baptism derives its efficacy from the merits of the Passion of Christ, thus uniting the baptismal candidate with our Lord's own martyrdom.