Author Topic: Novus Ordo Watch (Read 7201 times)

Loys · « **Reply #45 on:** October 22, 2015, 11:13:18 AM »

Typing error. It was supposed to say,

Derksen quit Novus Ordo Watch he claimed when he got married.

LucasL · « **Reply #46 on:** October 22, 2015, 11:17:57 AM »

One thing we know: He's not Eric The Great Catholic Monarch

by the way I invite everyone to read the thread regarding the last adventures of Eric Gajewski because doing that one will know how bad person behaves.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38455&min=40#p2

One will know how there are deceivers in the Trad but there are also good people we must know how to judge by their actions.

Loys · « **Reply #47 on:** October 22, 2015, 11:27:12 AM »

Quote from: irirfleo

Quote from: Loys
Quote from: irirfleo
Who is Gregorious? Does he have a website or something?

A former disciple of the born Catholic, revolted to Protestantism, then became a member of the Vatican 2 church, named Robert Sungenis ran Novus Ordo Watch for many years.

This former disciple of Sungenis name is Mario Derksen. Derksen for some reason always tried to hide that he was the webmaster of the site.

Derksen quite Novus Ordo Watch he claimed when he got married.

So after the wedding, Derksen's Novus Ordo Watch webmaster morphed to "Gregorious".

You can still see Derksen's influence on the site. Some think he is still very involved in it. I think they sell mugs and t-shirts on it.

(i'm not saying it's not truth)

Could you give me more info please?

how do I know if Mario Derksen is involved with NovusOrdoWatch or Robert Sungenis is still involved with that website?

Thanks!

Timeline is this:

Derksen was a disciple of Robert Sungenis.

Derksen started Novus Ordo Watch but publicly did not admit he owned and operated the site. Still he privately bragged about it for who knows why.

Derkson took some heat on issues he posted and found a girl to marry and supposedly passed on Novus Ordo Watch to this mysterious "Gregorious", who took over exactly where Derkson left off.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #48 on:** October 22, 2015, 11:32:01 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

I enjoy the www.novusordowatch.org website. Some time ago, the owner did a favorable article on my website, www.traditionalcatholic.net

I pray he is not influenced by the MHFM circus clowns

Daily Catholic editor is not influenced by the MHFM clowns, believe me. He let me do a whole series against Feeneyism.

LucasL · « **Reply #49 on:** October 22, 2015, 11:51:43 AM »

I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

Loys · « **Reply #50 on:** October 22, 2015, 12:01:47 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
I enjoy the www.novusordowatch.org website. Some time ago, the owner did a favorable article on my website, www.traditionalcatholic.net

I pray he is not influenced by the MHFM circus clowns

Daily Catholic editor is not influenced by the MHFM clowns, believe me. He let me do a whole series against Feeneyism.

Mario Derksen was grateful, he once told me, that "Brother" Michael Dimond (the Feeneyite) helped him understand a theological issue surrounding "the BOD 'controversy'".

Derksen had a una cuм Vat 2 popes apologetics website also before his Novus Ordo Watch production. In fact he ran both that Novus Ordo apologetics site and Novus Ordo Watch for awhile simultaneously.

He promotes Sirinism, the TLM wherever it's dished out, Sedevacantism and & t-shirts. His only consistency is his inconsistency of a principled line of thought.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #51 on:** October 22, 2015, 12:03:57 PM »

Quote from: irirfleo

I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

I fully get your point and you made it very well. I would agree that they cannot be called clowns but they are intellectually dishonest and uncharitable which is not what I normally think when I think of clowns. This can be proven of course. They are renown for taking quotes out of context and deleting parts of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They lied about me publicly once.

LucasL · « **Reply #52 on:** October 22, 2015, 01:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: irirfleo
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

I fully get your point and you made it very well. I would agree that they cannot be called clowns but they are intellectually dishonest and uncharitable which is not what I normally think when I think of clowns. This can be proven of course. They are renown for taking quotes out of context and deleting parts of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They lied about me publicly once.

I'm sincerely interested in more info on MHFM to know when they have used dishonest methods because it's going me to have a better understanding on their situation.

Could you give me more info on that please?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #53 on:** October 22, 2015, 01:20:16 PM »

Quote from: LucasL

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: irirfleo
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

I fully get your point and you made it very well. I would agree that they cannot be called clowns but they are intellectually dishonest and uncharitable which is not what I normally think when I think of clowns. This can be proven of course. They are renown for taking quotes out of context and deleting parts of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They lied about me publicly once.

I'm sincerely interested in more info on MHFM to know when they have used dishonest methods because it's going me to have a better understanding on their situation.

Could you give me more info on that please?

Here you go buddy:

http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html

LucasL · « **Reply #54 on:** October 22, 2015, 01:42:56 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: LucasL
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: irirfleo
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

I fully get your point and you made it very well. I would agree that they cannot be called clowns but they are intellectually dishonest and uncharitable which is not what I normally think when I think of clowns. This can be proven of course. They are renown for taking quotes out of context and deleting parts of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They lied about me publicly once.

I'm sincerely interested in more info on MHFM to know when they have used dishonest methods because it's going me to have a better understanding on their situation.

Could you give me more info on that please?

Here you go buddy:

http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html

The interesting fact it always come to the discussion of "Outside the Church there's no salvation" and the consequences of it.

Let me see if I understand

- MHFM believes that the Pope teaching in the Chair of Peter is protected by the Holy Spirit, this making it impossible for BoD to be truth because there's no docuмent from any Pope (ex cathedra) or Council regarding other Baptisms other than Water Baptism

Result: Baptism of Desire (Blood) is not a Catholic dogma.

- Griff believes that in the theologians and Saints in this regard because the Church does not teaches BoD BUT it's a tradition that comes from the first Doctors of the Church

Result: Baptism of Desire is a Catholic dogma because it wasn't rejected by any Council or Pope and it's a constant theme in the Saints teachings.

Is my conclusion right so far? (despite my bad engish)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #55 on:** October 22, 2015, 02:37:08 PM »

Quote from: LucasL

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: LucasL
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: irirfleo
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

I fully get your point and you made it very well. I would agree that they cannot be called clowns but they are intellectually dishonest and uncharitable which is not what I normally think when I think of clowns. This can be proven of course. They are renown for taking quotes out of context and deleting parts of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They lied about me publicly once.

I'm sincerely interested in more info on MHFM to know when they have used dishonest methods because it's going me to have a better understanding on their situation.

Could you give me more info on that please?

Here you go buddy:

http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html

The interesting fact it always come to the discussion of "Outside the Church there's no salvation" and the consequences of it.

Let me see if I understand

- MHFM believes that the Pope teaching in the Chair of Peter is protected by the Holy Spirit, this making it impossible for BoD to be truth because there's no docuмent from any Pope (ex cathedra) or Council regarding other Baptisms other than Water Baptism

Result: Baptism of Desire (Blood) is not a Catholic dogma.

- Griff believes that in the theologians and Saints in this regard because the Church does not teaches BoD BUT it's a tradition that comes from the first Doctors of the Church

Result: Baptism of Desire is a Catholic dogma because it wasn't rejected by any Council or Pope and it's a constant theme in the Saints teachings.

Is my conclusion right so far? (despite my bad engish)

I wish everyone was as sincere and as thirsty for the truth as you. MHFM does not properly interpret what the Church taught from the Chair. MHFM understand half the teaching on EENS 100% correctly while missing the entire second half. BOB/D does not contradict EENS but compliments it.

Alphonsus, Bernard, Aquinas, Bellarmine do understand what the Popes taught on EENS and what they did not teach. So too all the approved theologians who taught EENS and accept BOB/D before V2 as part of that infallible. Yes, Griff understand this as well.

Saint Alphonses says BOB/D is "de fide" based upon the council of Trent. The brothers do not understand what the Church has taught on the issue. They got half of it right. There is no Salvation Outside the Church. But non-members of the Church can be saved within the Church if they die with a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity. If this goes the BOB/D route we might have to move to another thread though.

Thanks for asking all these good questions!

God bless,
LoT

LucasL · « **Reply #56 on:** October 22, 2015, 02:57:31 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: LucasL
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: LucasL
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: irirfleo
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.

What they do is to use the Church docuмents to prove their argument. The problem is the way they argue (some may call it aggressive) but not the issues they argue.

It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

Same goes to other priests in SV position. I may not like the way he argues , the language etc but I can't someone is a clown If I don't have proves that he's dishonest.

I fully get your point and you made it very well. I would agree that they cannot be called clowns but they are intellectually dishonest and uncharitable which is not what I normally think when I think of clowns. This can be proven of course. They are renown for taking quotes out of context and deleting parts of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They lied about me publicly once.

I'm sincerely interested in more info on MHFM to know when they have used dishonest methods because it's going me to have a better understanding on their situation.

Could you give me more info on that please?

Here you go buddy:

http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html

The interesting fact it always come to the discussion of "Outside the Church there's no salvation" and the consequences of it.

Let me see if I understand

- MHFM believes that the Pope teaching in the Chair of Peter is protected by the Holy Spirit, this making it impossible for BoD to be truth because there's no docuмent from any Pope (ex cathedra) or Council regarding other Baptisms other than Water Baptism

Result: Baptism of Desire (Blood) is not a Catholic dogma.

- Griff believes that in the theologians and Saints in this regard because the Church does not teaches BoD BUT it's a tradition that comes from the first Doctors of the Church

Result: Baptism of Desire is a Catholic dogma because it wasn't rejected by any Council or Pope and it's a constant theme in the Saints teachings.

Is my conclusion right so far? (despite my bad engish)

I wish everyone was as sincere and as thirsty for the truth as you. MHFM does not properly interpret what the Church taught from the Chair. MHFM understand half the teaching on EENS 100% correctly while missing the entire second half. BOB/D does not contradict EENS but compliments it.

Alphonsus, Bernard, Aquinas, Bellarmine do understand what the Popes taught on EENS and what they did not teach. So too all the approved theologians who taught EENS and accept BOB/D before V2 as part of that infallible. Yes, Griff understand this as well.

Saint Alphonses says BOB/D is "de fide" based upon the council of Trent. The brothers do not understand what the Church has taught on the issue. They got half of it right. There is no Salvation Outside the Church. But non-members of the Church can be saved within the Church if they die with a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity. If this goes the BOB/D route we might have to move to another thread though.

Thanks for asking all these good questions!

God bless,
LoT

That's interesting, I became aware of St Alphonsus in BoD recently and I've not read any line as of now (of his work) so I need to study but at least to me it seems right that BoD complements "Outside The Church There's no Salvation" still I have not studied it.
Thank YOU for clarification! :)

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #57 on:** October 22, 2015, 09:24:59 PM »

Quote from: LucasL

I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.
...
It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

They are very clever, no doubt, but lack charity. The utilize conjecture and omission to spread their misconceptions. Pray for them.

Loys · « **Reply #58 on:** October 22, 2015, 09:38:32 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: LucasL
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.
...
It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

They are very clever, no doubt, but lack charity. The utilize conjecture and omission to spread their misconceptions. Pray for them.

JohnAnthonyMarie,

You used to mentor the Dimonds with their website building. How and when did you cease & desist?

Can you determine if they were always Feeneyites?

Also do you know if Michael Dimond has close Jєωιѕн ancestry?

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #59 on:** October 22, 2015, 09:56:13 PM »

Quote from: Loys

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: LucasL
I don't think it's fair to call MHFM clowns because despite their behaviour (calling everyone heretic) they are not using false doctrine, false docuмents or anything.
...
It's doing more harm than good, but I can't call them clowns for doing that. Clowns use lies and dishonest methods in which I don't believe they use.

They are very clever, no doubt, but lack charity. The utilize conjecture and omission to spread their misconceptions. Pray for them.

JohnAnthonyMarie,

You used to mentor the Dimonds with their website building. How and when did you cease & desist?

Can you determine if they were always Feeneyites?

Also do you know if Michael Dimond has close Jєωιѕн ancestry?

At the time, I was converting their authorship for web presence, one article at a time. During the conversion of "Peter's" outside the Church there is no salvation, I became aware of their deceptive means, omission and conjecture. I brought this to their attention. They called me names, condemned me to hell, and then slandered my name with lies on their webpage.

They have the audacity of entertainers, ultra egomaniacs.