Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Maria Regina on October 18, 2015, 04:13:21 AM
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/archives/09-2015.html
One of my friends provided a link to this site and to this horrible event which recently concluded. Do they reconsecrate the church after defiling it?
Who runs this website? Can it be trusted?
-
I don't know who runs it, but the site simply provides links to other news and commentary sites about the Conciliar church. They do add their own commentary to some of their links, but they are, for the most part, just a central point for disseminating news and commentary. I have noted that on those rare occasions when it turns out they linked to a false story (i.e., a parody website or an actually falsified news event) they have immediately removed the link from their website.
It seems to me that Novus Ordo Watch is pretty reliable and can be trusted with what it claims to do which is, "Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church".
The link to the "News Wire" is: http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm It is updated fairly frequently.
Someone recently wrote on this forum that their headlines are sensationalized. But I think that the headlines are almost always a true reflection of the accompanying story.
By the way, I've never heard that the Conciliar church reconsecrates a church after defiling it. After all, this is what the Conciliar priests and bishops think the Church is for! Why would they reconsecrate it?
-
I don't know if they can be trusted. I proceed with them with the same caution I proceed vising Bro. Dimond website: see the docuмents and read for myself. I may read/hear their explanations after.
Read and see the docuмents, the doctrine and the evidence for youself as Bishop Williamson has recommended to us. We have very huge material over the internet that can be trusted as verbatim copies. There's a tremendous effort into translating the Councils docuмents into english, still for study Canon Law or other deep works one must learn latim. But we as the layman don't have to read latim and today most important docuмents are translated into major languages: english, french and spanish.
See the docuмents for yourself is my best answer. Regarding the news section, I have no problem with that, in fact is a good source of up to date news coming from Pope Francis. It makes easier to see one website with recent news so you don't have to do many clicks. But you can't expect to find everything new there; most information posted in english websites plus there're others independent journalist thay may not get into mainstream media.
-
This article for instance is very good and unfortunately I came to know only recently:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/bob-lubic-the-punk-priest.htm
There's another one (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/gαy-priest-outs-himself.htm)
and this (http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/buchel-sodomy-no-problem.htm)
I know a lot of people don't like reading/knowing these things but it's important to know how far things are going and how in danger we are. I'm posting this because I think I could not answer your question in a proper way so I'd say yes, you can trust the news they post :)
-
For the most part, I think it can be trusted. Even as a sedevacantist I sometimes think they go overboard in the way they report things. I would not equate them with the DB's: I rarely go to their website unless they pop up on a google search of mine.
-
Thank you for your replies.
-
Novus Ordo Watch became sedevacantist around 2002 after seeing a video put out by MHFM and the Dimond Brothers. If that hadn't happened, he'd probably still be an SSPX supporter. 2Vermont says: I would not equate them with the Dimond Brothers.
2Vermont's implication is wrong. The Dimond Brothers and MHFM's material is better, more reliable. While Novus Ordo Watch has some good information, they are seriously wrong on the salvation and baptism issues. By the way, 2Vermont recently cited some statements on Islam and linked to another site. Those were also quotes that originally appeared on MHFM and the Dimond Brothers' site. If you have problems with MHFM's material, it's really because you are too liberal or lacking in faith to receive the full truth.
So are you Peter or Michael?
-
Novus Ordo Watch became sedevacantist around 2002 after seeing a video put out by MHFM and the Dimond Brothers. If that hadn't happened, he'd probably still be an SSPX supporter. 2Vermont says: I would not equate them with the Dimond Brothers.
2Vermont's implication is wrong. The Dimond Brothers and MHFM's material is better, more reliable. While Novus Ordo Watch has some good information, they are seriously wrong on the salvation and baptism issues. By the way, 2Vermont recently cited some statements on Islam and linked to another site. Those were also quotes that originally appeared on MHFM and the Dimond Brothers' site. If you have problems with MHFM's material, it's really because you are too liberal or lacking in faith to receive the full truth.
So are you Peter or Michael?
Isn't one of them named Fred?
-
Personally I believe that Novus Ordo Watch is the best site in existence (that I have encountered). No I don't run it. :roll-laugh2:
IMO, based upon my reading of theological manuals the people on that site seem entrenched in orthodoxy and are quite reliable, even-handed and balanced. Their tradcast episodes also confirm this.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/tradcast/index.html
The articles their are particularly beneficial and entertaining such as the below:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm#.ViUHZk2FOnp
People don't like reading anything more than a few pages anymore but the above is hard to top.
All the articles by Gregorious are great:
Then there is this which is very helpful:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/sedevacantism-a-primer.htm
The resources here are incredible:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/resources.htm
All the links at the bottom of this page are helpful as well:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/why-sedevacantism-cekada.htm
They back up what they say with excellent resources, manuals, books, encyclicals, etc. Plus the wit and humor are nice bit of frosting on the cake.
Since John Lane's site is defunct my next choice would be the CMRI site (though I don't agree with them in regards to donating vital organs when "brain-dead" and possibly on NFP:
http://www.cmri.org/
Regarding sites that are continually updated Christ or Chaos is rather reliable, though again, these days, people generally do not like to read, Dr. Droleskey has had seminary training and is rather knowledgeable for a lay-man and has that good sense of humor that I have seen on Novus Ordo Watch. I guess you have to have a sense of humor these days.
I'm somewhat partial to Daily Catholic run by Michael Cain who also has seminary training and is very devout, sincere and knowledgeable:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/
The "Features and Articles" section is my favorite but he has a plethora of things on that site that can be beneficial to any Catholic.
The below site, run be Griff Ruby who was beneficial in getting me to see things and very patient with all my objections and devil's advocate posturing, is excellent but I believe the site is not as frequently updated as others:
http://the-pope.com/
But the Library archive where you can read theology manuals is most beneficial for the reading man.
https://archive.org/
-
Even if one might think the commentaries provided are "over the top" (I don't, but some people do), what the website does is to link to hard-news sites and official websites of the Conciliar Church as well as to youtube videos of actual events. The site also links to other commentaries, which can easily be ignored.
I don't know how the site could be considered "unreliable". It would be like claiming that a docuмent on the Vatican website isn't a reliable indication of what the docuмent actually says. (Which, come to think about it, is something many of the anti-sedevacantists on this very forum do! Interesting.)
-
Even if one might think the commentaries provided are "over the top" (I don't, but some people do), what the website does is to link to hard-news sites and official websites of the Conciliar Church as well as to youtube videos of actual events. The site also links to other commentaries, which can easily be ignored.
I don't know how the site could be considered "unreliable". It would be like claiming that a docuмent on the Vatican website isn't a reliable indication of what the docuмent actually says. (Which, come to think about it, is something many of the anti-sedevacantists on this very forum do! Interesting.)
Yeah. It helps when you are only concerned about the truth. No need to treat what comes from the horses mouth like something from the horses other side.
The below is an example the hard to find reliable sources that can be found on the site.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/diaries-msgr-joseph-fenton.htm
-
Even if one might think the commentaries provided are "over the top" (I don't, but some people do), what the website does is to link to hard-news sites and official websites of the Conciliar Church as well as to youtube videos of actual events. The site also links to other commentaries, which can easily be ignored.
I don't know how the site could be considered "unreliable". It would be like claiming that a docuмent on the Vatican website isn't a reliable indication of what the docuмent actually says. (Which, come to think about it, is something many of the anti-sedevacantists on this very forum do! Interesting.)
Yeah. It helps if you are only concerned about truth. Treating what comes from the horses mouth like it comes from the horses other side does not help much.
The below. is an example the hard to find reliable sources that can be found on the site.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/diaries-msgr-joseph-fenton.htm
-
"If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.”
—Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1962
Thank you for posting this link above.
Msgr. Fenton's insights are wonderful.
-
"If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.”
—Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1962
Thank you for posting this link above.
Msgr. Fenton's insights are wonderful.
You are very welcome. There was not anyone more qualified to speak on the issue.
-
Who is Gregorious? Does he have a website or something?
-
Who is Gregorious? Does he have a website or something?
I think it's a pen name.
-
Does he write exclusively on NovusOrduwatch? I was reading over the internet about an ex-R&R polish man who is now sedevancantist I thought it was him. I don't remember this polish guy blog :(
There was only a few posts in enligsh so it not be him, I'm just curious though.
-
Does he write exclusively on NovusOrduwatch? I was reading over the internet about an ex-R&R polish man who is now sedevancantist I thought it was him. I don't remember this polish guy blog :(
There was only a few posts in enligsh so it not be him, I'm just curious though.
I'm not sure. But I would like to read anything by him on any site if anyone comes across anything. I was incredibly impressed with his writing.
-
Would you mind sending me more articles from Gregorious? I'd like to read in other to have an opinion about him.
-
Would you mind sending me more articles from Gregorious? I'd like to read in other to have an opinion about him.
Sure. Let me look.
-
http://www.novusordowatch.org/resources.htm
Click the above link and then scroll down a bit and you will see the following that you can click on:
Articles by Gregorius
Quo Vadis, SSPX?: The Society of St. Pius X after the Lifting of the “Excommunications” of 1988
In January 2009, Modernist Rome issued a decree removing the censures against the SSPX from a decade before. The author looks at the ensuing doctrinal talks between the two sides and warns of what could be a very dangerous outcome.
Sede Vacante 1958-2008: Reflections on a 50-Year Vacancy of the Apostolic See
Nineteen fifty-eight was one of the most disastrous years in the long history of the Catholic Church, for with the passing of Pope Pius XII was set in motion a sequence of events so devastating that the Church still hasn't recovered―and this report points to the seizing of the Holy See by her enemies as pivotal.
One and the Same Rite: How Benedict XVI Aims to Destroy the Traditional Latin Mass
This study concerns Summorum Pontificuм, Benedict XVI's supposed liturgical Magna Carta liberating the Traditional Latin Mass, and shows how it is being used to draw unsuspecting Catholics into the Novus Ordo Church.
Refinishing the Great Facade: The Vatican, the SSPX, and the 'Restoration of Tradition'
An in-depth exploration of why the "recognize and resist" position regarding Benedict XVI held by the Society of St. Pius X, The Remnant, and others represents a false solution to the crisis that will do exactly the opposite of what they intend: Seriously impede the restoration of Tradition, rather than hasten it.
No Friend of Fatima: Unspinning Christopher Ferrara's Defense of Benedict XVI
Prior to April 19, 2005, lawyer/journalist Christopher Ferrara was one of the most scathing critics of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the head of Modernist Rome's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, yet on that fateful day, when Ratzinger became Benedict XVI, Ferrara has switched from prosecutor to defense attorney. Revealed here is how Ferrara plays spin doctor on a crucial subject: Benedict and the Third Secret of Fatima.
The Chair Is Still Empty: A Response to the Attack on Sedevacantism by John Salza, in 2 Parts
Also available in French (here) and Spanish (here)
Ex-Freemason John Salza has become a popular writer/speaker in conservative Novus Ordo and neo-traditionalist circles for his exposés of the Lodge in the Vatican II Church (a "priest" urged him to join the Masons!). But he is also the New Church's latest darling to attempt to refute sedevacantism. Part 1 of Gregorius' response addresses Salza's 2010 article "The Errors of Sedevacantism": Gregorius shows that Salza's critique is based on a flawed understanding of Sacred Theology and Canon Law and so does not pose a genuine challenge to the sedevacantist position. In Part 2, Gregorius deconstructs Salza's embarrassing 2011 article "Sedevacantism and the Sin of Presumption" and shows that Salza's incredibly poor scholarship is matched only by his complete incompetence on the matter he "presumes" to pontificate on. Exit John Salza... Two absolute slam dunks!
You Can't Have It "Your Way": A Response to Fr. Chazal's Arguments against Sedevacantism
On Dec. 8, 2013, Fr. Francois Chazal (SSPX-SO) penned a letter to the Rev. Paul Kramer upon learning of the latter's rejection of Francis as the Pope of the Catholic Church and his embrace of "Resignationism", the idea that the Pope is still Benedict XVI. Chazal used the opportunity to make several arguments against the sedevacantist position. In this essay, Gregorius takes Fr. Chazal to task and demonstrates that his argumentation does not hold water and can in fact be used against his own "recognize-and-resist" stance. Absolutely devastating!
-
I did not intend the one bolded in red to come out so big. But that is the best one I read so far, but they are all great.
-
Thanks!
Ha, look at this, how amazing
"Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being." May 20, 2005
Just one last question, why is John Salza cited in many "traditional" Catholics websites? He's in the Novus Ordo isn't he?
-
Thanks!
Ha, look at this, how amazing
"Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being." May 20, 2005
Just one last question, why is John Salza cited in many "traditional" Catholics websites? He's in the Novus Ordo isn't he?
I personally don't know too much about him. I do know he is very anti-SV and appears to be intellectually dishonest. I e-mailed him back and forth a few times until he stopped responding.
-
"Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being." May 20, 2005
Pretty awesome prediction huh.
-
"Benedict XVI will seek to destroy the traditional Catholic resistance not by attacking it, but by neutralizing it: he will seek to undermine its reason for being." May 20, 2005
Pretty awesome prediction huh.
Extremely vague though.
-
I go to Novus Ordo Watch for Church news like I go to Traditio and MHFM. I have a problem with them though because when I listened to their first "tradcast" I learned that they only consider sedevacantists to be truly Catholic and all the rest of the traditionalists are not Catholic, but merely pseudo-trads or something like that, I don't remember the exact words they used. So I thought that was a schismatic mentality that made me lose respect for them, but I still think the Novus Ordo Wire is worth visiting for the Church news.
-
Does NovusOrdoWatch considers people who are either sedeprivationist or in the Resistance "heretic" or outside the Church?
The only group I know so far who considers sedeprivationists and resistance heretics are the MHFM Brothers.
if someone I could answer me I'd appreciate it.
Gregorious answer to Fr. Chazal didn't have any "heretic" or anything similar. They just have opposite opinions.
-
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
-
Does NovusOrdoWatch considers people who are either sedeprivationist or in the Resistance "heretic" or outside the Church?
The only group I know so far who considers sedeprivationists and resistance heretics are the MHFM Brothers.
if someone I could answer me I'd appreciate it.
Gregorious answer to Fr. Chazal didn't have any "heretic" or anything similar. They just have opposite opinions.
Matt is somewhat confused about things as many of us are. The fact he goes to MHFM and puts them on the same plane as Novos Watch is evidence of that.
-
I go to Novus Ordo Watch for Church news like I go to Traditio and MHFM. I have a problem with them though because when I listened to their first "tradcast" I learned that they only consider sedevacantists to be truly Catholic and all the rest of the traditionalists are not Catholic, but merely pseudo-trads or something like that, I don't remember the exact words they used. So I thought that was a schismatic mentality that made me lose respect for them, but I still think the Novus Ordo Wire is worth visiting for the Church news.
Cam you try to refute the arguments given rather than simply label Novus Ordo Watch as "schismatic"?
-
The point I think they make on Novus Ordo Watch are:
1. It is Divine Law that a Public heretic cannot be Pope.
2. One who maintains, V2, the new Sacraments, the new Mass, the new Canon Law and the new "saints" cannot be Pope.
3. Bergolio does all the above. Therefore . . .
The idea that we all are trying to be Catholics but can be confused, I am sure, has not slipped past whoever runs the NOW site IMO.
It is a dogma that we must obey a valid Pope on all the things he binds on the Church. Number 2 is bound on the Church if Bergolio is Pope.
I'm speaking in the objective realm here.
All will agree that Bergolio is either Pope or not. He can't both be Pope and not a Pope. So objectively there is no "opinion" he is either Pope or not. All who know what the Catholic Church teaches on the Papacy will agree that, objectively, our salvation depends on whether we accept what a valid Pope binds on the Church, which includes Councils, Sacraments, Liturgy, Canon Law and Saints. If one who purports to be a valid Pope binds on the Church that which cannot be bound by a valid Pope he cannot be a valid Pope. Those are not just words but are objective facts. They cannot be denied by those familiar with the teaching on the Papacy, especially since the Vatican Council [Vatican I].
Now some in fact are not familiar with the teaching on the papacy and are not culpably ignorant of that teaching, so everything else being equal they would be true Catholics. Who ever runs the site is obviously more knowledgeable than I am so I am sure he does not miss that fact. I believe he has a contact on his site where he or they can be contacted directly. Ask him.
Regarding the question of "you cannot bind the conscience to SV" etc. Here too distinctions are necessary. NO ONE is saying, "I bind your conscience to SV -- you have to be SV because I say so." Show me where he says that on his site. That would be binding someone's conscience through non-existent authority. Of course that's wrong and cannot be done, but I also don't know of anyone doing it.
However, this doesn't mean that SV itself isn't binding on one's conscience. It is very much binding OF ITSELF as soon as one realizes its truth, just like any other fact is binding once it is understood. (Do you understand this point? There is a true conclusion on the topic. If we have the means to do the research and the intellectual capacity to accept the conclusion and ability to make proper distinctions, this last is sorely lacking among many common Catholics, then it becomes binding. Once we no longer can be excused with inculpable ignorance it is binding. This point should be readily granted.)
The binding nature of SV arises not from some authoritative pronouncement by NOW or SSPX, but from the fact that IT ALONE can reconcile the empirical facts with Catholic teaching. Again we are speaking in the objective realm. Subjectively some may not get it through no fault of their own. In other words, the absence of any other theologically sound solution is what renders sedevacantism binding on the conscience objectively (and subjectively to all who understand the facts and the position).
Lastly, regarding "leaving it in suspense". One can indeed say, "I do not know if Francis is Pope, I cannot decide." OK, that is possible, but only in theory. In practice, you MUST decide. That is simply the nature of the law of non-contradiction: you either adhere to the pre-V2 or the post-V2 teachings. You either go to an "approved Mass" (of the V2 church) or you don't (subjectively one could be ignorant of the fact that one cannot go to a Mass not approved by the Pope I grant). But apart from that, one way or another, in the practical order, you ARE making a decision.
So, while suspending judgment is possible, in theory, it is not possible to not act. One way or another, you ARE acting. Some might in good conscience go to both the new and the true Mass. But again we are talking in the subjective realm and in regards to ignorance. All good Catholics on this forum want the truth and are willing to act accordingly. Whether a purported pope is Pope or not is not a matter of indifference. Whether, in the objective realm, we are damned for disobeying what a valid Pope binds on the Church or not is not a matter of indifference.
In many, perhaps most, cases, the R&Rs basically ignore (disbelieve) Catholic teaching on the papacy and the Magisterium. While one can sympathize with the struggle each one of us goes through in trying to make sense of this mess, that does not mean that one can cease to profess the true Faith and still be a member of the Church. But even more so, the sin of schism. It would seem (in the objective realm, I hope the potential objectors are making this distinction) that one who accepts one as Pope but refuses to submit to him has a schismatic attitude. One cannot separate the question of the Pope from the Faith, certainly not since Vatican I, since submission to the Pope is a dogma and necessary for salvation.
The idea (think 1910 or any time in Catholic history when a valid Pope was unquestionably ruling as is maintained by the R&R's now) of "we just keep the Faith and let God sort out the Pope issue" (it doesn't matter whether Pope Pius X is Pope or not) seems like an unCatholic attitude for one who understands the theology behind the Papacy.
I could see where that would make sense. On the other hand I believe you could keep the Faith and still be Catholic while not being sure. Also not being sure one way or the other through no fault of your own is far different than insisting that he is Pope while acting as if he is not, which while subjectively not preventing one from being Catholic, objectively seems like a very unCatholic attitude. I still have not heard a convincing argument as to how "He is definitely the Pope but I am not going to submit to him" manifests a Catholic attitude.
I keep stating that this is the case for one who understands the Papacy as their is a distinction to be made between a bad Pope giving a command to an individual or group and what he binds on the whole Church. Of course the people unable or unwilling to make this distinction as is if there is no difference between the two scenarios and who quote Bellarmine against himself as if he does not understand what he says or means in the two distinct instances will object but objections do not untruth the truth.
For the Catholic it matters very much whether a purported Pope is an actual Pope or not as our salvation depends on submitting to what a valid Pope binds on the Church. Subjectively, of course, and I believe NOW will readily grant, that one can err in good faith on the issue. If one has proof that NOW denies this point I would like to see it and I will contact the site myself and speak to the person. Of course the basic minimum one must believe, and profess, in order to have the Faith is the existence of God, that He rewards and punishes, and possibly the Incarnation and Holy Trinity. But objectively one cannot be Catholic if he knows Papal theology and rejects it, and or knows a valid Pope must be obeyed in regards to what he binds on the Church and refuses to obey one he believes is a valid Pope. If one realizes he is disobeying what has been bound on the Church by one he believes is a valid Pope one must rectify the issue one way or the other to the degree it is possible for one to do so. One cannot just avoid the issue and hope it works out, for fear of the answer and how this might change their life and knock them out of their comfort zone. (All should readily agree with that).
I don't think he (I keep saying "he" here because I am not politically correct, plus I doubt it is a woman anyway) denies one can keep the Faith if one sincerely does not know whether he is Pope or not or sincerely thinks he is through no fault of his own. It would be a good question to ask him. It is incuмbent on us to try to resolve the issue to the degree our state in life allows IMO.
But the real thing, I believe, is that we have encountered anti-SVs who are intellectually dishonest. They simply do not want admit SV can be true, Divine Law be damned. Why? Any number of reasons I guess, money, many children with only the SSPX available, the possibility of being kicked out of the SSPX if you go public with your opinion. But it is those types I believe he calls semi-trads and not really Catholics. Because they KNOW divine law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope. They know that a valid Pope cannot bind on earth what cannot be bound in Heaven. In discussions they do not respond to or grant these points but simply move to other objections. Some writers in anti-SV publications are CLEARLY biased and willfully blind on the topic. They will have to answer for in regards to themselves and those they mislead. Others are afraid of the answer and willfully keep themselves in suspense.
I do not think he is talking about those sincerely confused, through no fault of their own, or who err on this topic, through no fault of their own. But it would be good to contact the site and ask him. It is so easy to make conclusions about people based upon feelings but if you asked him directly your conclusion about the views of the site owner could end up being quite different.
A lot of this comes down to sincerity and whether one is culpably ignorant of things pertaining to the Papacy or not. Then we can apply this to alot of things such as what if one sincerely does not believe in the Immaculate Conception through no fault of his own? The Resurrection? Infants and those with extreme mental disabilities aside. How far do we reduce these hypotheticals? How ignorant can a trained Priest in the SSPX or a lawyer who has the undeniable teaching on the papacy presented to him be?
The very sad fact of the matter is, and my wife can vouch for this, is that R&Rs do not believe in (or even know about, thanks to the SSPX) true Catholic teaching on the papacy. They believe the Pope is not much different from the protestant pastor - when he says something that's true and useful, you agree; when he doesn't, you ignore or resist. That's it.
Say it was 1910. Could one be a Catholic if they did not accept the Vatican (1) Council, the Sacraments, Mass, Canon Law, Saints under Pius X? Could we decide we cannot, should not or will not (or it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to) accept the 1917 Code of Canon Law for one reason or another or a Saint canonized by Pius X?
-
The person who runs Novus ordo Watch has sent me links to Bishop Sanborn and Fr Cekada, so he is aligned with them. They split with SSPV, so...When I came across a German video of a German bishop allowing dancers in only nude colored underwear to dance with each other in a sɛҳuąƖ way right in front of the altar, I tried giving the link to various trad writers. The only one who responded was this person. He did a video that may still be on youtube of this bishop actually endorsing this mess in his cathedral. I was very grateful to him for that, because maybe someone will open their eyes at something that blatant. Personally, however, I do not trust Bishop Sanborn or Fr Cekada. They never mention certain topics. And they caused a friend of mine to be banned from youtube.
-
The person who runs Novus ordo Watch has sent me links to Bishop Sanborn and Fr Cekada, so he is aligned with them. They split with SSPV, so...When I came across a German video of a German bishop allowing dancers in only nude colored underwear to dance with each other in a sɛҳuąƖ way right in front of the altar, I tried giving the link to various trad writers. The only one who responded was this person. He did a video that may still be on youtube of this bishop actually endorsing this mess in his cathedral. I was very grateful to him for that, because maybe someone will open their eyes at something that blatant. Personally, however, I do not trust Bishop Sanborn or Fr Cekada. They never mention certain topics. And they caused a friend of mine to be banned from youtube.
Nice post. One thing I will mention, you can utilize those with a traditional seminary training, who were there at the beginning, as Cekeda and Dolan were, as a source for what went on during and after V2 as Restoration Radio does while at the same time not approving of how have handled their various parishes or the various tactics they use to get their way. For instance, I am not big on Cekeda or Dolan but I have shared many of their links to people as they have spoken eloquently and accurately on important issues. But I would not like to think of myself as being "aligned" with them.
To elaborate. I do not consider myself "aligned" with MHFM but I have shared links of theirs with others. The same goes with TRADITIO, SSPX, SSPV. I do not even consider myself to be "aligned" with CMRI but I will share good things from their site.
Does that make sense?
Mainly I would not condemn a site that utilizes the only living traditional sources we have left that link us back to V2 whether it be Bishop Kelly, Father Jenkins, Dolan, Cekeda or Sanborn. Regardless of their personal sins.
Granted I would prefer that prominent SVs not have these problems. But what are we gonna do. :smile:
-
(....)
Say it was 1910. Could one be a Catholic if they did not accept the Vatican (1) Council, the Sacraments, Mass, Canon Law, Saints under Pius X? Could we decide we cannot, should not or will not (or it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to) accept the 1917 Code of Canon Law for one reason or another or a Saint canonized by Pius X?
It's clear that they intended they called the council Vatican II Ecuмenical Council .. in which it has pastoral nature.
It does not matter if one calls "pastoral nature" or "pastoral characteristic" while talking about the docuмents on VII because VII changed the doctrine.
The VII is 100% invalid from any perspective. They changed this dogma for instance "jews and pagans are outside the Church and must convert to be saved" into "are our brothers in Faith" so either the Church was wrong until 1963 or the "experts" who attended the Council are wrong.
Are the Church wrong? No. The ones who denies the previous Popes are outside the Church!
Against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ:
Clement XII - In eminenti apostolatus - 1738
Benedict XIV - Providas Romanorum - 1751
Pius VII - Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo - 1821
Leo XII - Quo graviora - 1826
Pius VIII - Traditi humilitati - 1829
Gregory XVI - Mirari vos - 1832
Pius IX
Qui pluribus - 1846
Quibus quantisque malis - 1849
Quanta cura - 1864
Multiplices inter - 1865
Apostolicæ Sedis - 1869
Etsi multa - 1873
Leo XIII[
Etsi Nos - 1882
Humanum genus - 1884
Officio sanctissimo - 1887
Ab Apostolici - 1890
Custodi di quella fede - 1892
Inimica vis - 1892
Praeclara gratulationis publicae - 1894
Annum ingressi - 1902
-
To elaborate. I do not consider myself "aligned" with MHFM but I have shared links of theirs with others. The same goes with TRADITIO, SSPX, SSPV. I do not even consider myself to be "aligned" with CMRI but I will share good things from their site.
Does that make sense?
Mainly I would not condemn a site that utilizes the only living traditional sources we have left that link us back to V2 whether it be Bishop Kelly, Father Jenkins, Dolan, Cekeda or Sanborn. Regardless of their personal sins.
Granted I would prefer that prominent SVs not have these problems. But what are we gonna do. :smile:
I agree with you
I can't claim MHFM is wrong, I can't claim they are using false docuмents or false logic arguments in order to claim what they claim.
The problem always come down to this: how can we have unity while Rome is falling apart. I asked MHFM not to call people who believe in Baptism of Desire heretic and I ask people on the other side (who don't believe only in Water Baptism) not to call others heretic.
-
History can teach us a lesson here:
We had bad morally Popes in the past. They were no St. Pius X before being elected, but once they were elected Pope, they didn't harm the Church, they didn't change the doctrine and in fact they did good things on the doctrine despite what errors they may have committed previously.
Do we all agree on that?
Before VII do we know any Pope that denied a Catholic dogma?
-
The last time I heard, NovusOrdoWatch.org was run by Mario Derksen.
-
A prominent editor of an SV newspaper told me she didn't think he ran it any more for what it is worth.
-
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.
-
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.
That's funny. I thought he had a fetish with skeletons and generally eats his own poo for breakfast. It is amazing what things people come up with.
-
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!
-
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!
Robert Sungenis is an anti-SV. Whoever runs is a solid knowledgeable Catholic based on the works.
I think we should respect their desire to be anonymous and focus our thoughts whether what is put there is credible or not.
-
I mistakenly confused Daily Catholic and Novus Ordo Watch websites. What I said previously in support of the Novus Ordo Watch owner was incorrectly misdirected from the owner of Daily Catholic. Sorry for the mistake.
-
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!
Robert Sungenis is an anti-SV. Whoever runs is a solid knowledgeable Catholic based on the works.
I think we should respect their desire to be anonymous and focus our thoughts whether what is put there is credible or not.
Absolutely, I was just asking proofs because it was claimed that the user knew who was associated with the website or who was Gregorious .. then if no proof is given, I'd disregard that comment :)
-
Typing error. It was supposed to say,
Derksen quit Novus Ordo Watch he claimed when he got married.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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. :laugh1:
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.
-
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 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?
-
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
-
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 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
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Yeah they are terrible. And they are liars.
An individual who produced videos for them (J.M.) in the past summed Michael Dimond up as a "cold blooded money machine". There was a lot of scandal when that Natale died and they moved their scam to Fillmore, NY.
-
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.
Could you give me some examples of their deceptive means? What was the question in fact when you pointed out to them ?
Do you remember when was your question? I could search on their e-exchange archive to see how they have answered.
I don't like MHFM on the personal level, but so far I'm looking sincerely for proofs that they use deception methods.
The fact that I don't like the way the treat other people does not mean I can say that they use false docuмents or lies.
-
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.
Could you give me some examples of their deceptive means? What was the question in fact when you pointed out to them ?
Do you remember when was your question? I could search on their e-exchange archive to see how they have answered.
I don't like MHFM on the personal level, but so far I'm looking sincerely for proofs that they use deception methods.
The fact that I don't like the way the treat other people does not mean I can say that they use false docuмents or lies.
If you read the below articles you will see that they take quotes out of context and delete part of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They are deceptive in the same way as the devil by lying with the truth.
Satan: No, you shall not die the death.
This was true. They did not die when they ate. But their souls died and death entered the world. Satan conveniently left this part out.
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
When they ate their eyes were opened and they learned evil for the first time and also good as opposed to evil and what happens when one avoids good and does evil whereas before they did not know this. The learned good as what happens when evil is done and the punishment that is avoided when good is done instead of evil. But he failed to mention that point.
The Dimonds say Pope such and such said this, but the don't mention or stress the part they left out or the context where he would appear to contradict himself if you read something else he wrote or read earlier or later in the same docuмent they quote which would contradict their fanciful interpretation. Of course the Popes they quote do not contradict themselves but they contradict the Dimonds interpration of EENS.
They are more effectively deceptive than most human beings because they lie with the truth. And they know this, otherwise they would not delete part of the quotes without using ellipsis and repeatedly take things out of context.
They quote true things but take it out of context and delete part of the quotes. The quote is true but only properly understood and taken in context:
http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html
-
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.
Could you give me some examples of their deceptive means? What was the question in fact when you pointed out to them ?
Do you remember when was your question? I could search on their e-exchange archive to see how they have answered.
I don't like MHFM on the personal level, but so far I'm looking sincerely for proofs that they use deception methods.
The fact that I don't like the way the treat other people does not mean I can say that they use false docuмents or lies.
If you read the below articles you will see that they take quotes out of context and delete part of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They are deceptive in the same way as the devil by lying with the truth.
Satan: No, you shall not die the death.
This was true. They did not die when they ate. But their souls died and death entered the world. Satan conveniently left this part out.
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
When they ate their eyes were opened and they learned evil for the first time and also good as opposed to evil and what happens when one avoids good and does evil whereas before they did not know this. The learned good as what happens when evil is done and the punishment that is avoided when good is done instead of evil. But he failed to mention that point.
The Dimonds say Pope such and such said this, but the don't mention or stress the part they left out or the context where he would appear to contradict himself if you read something else he wrote or read earlier or later in the same docuмent they quote which would contradict their fanciful interpretation. Of course the Popes they quote do not contradict themselves but they contradict the Dimonds interpration of EENS.
They are more effectively deceptive than most human beings because they lie with the truth. And they know this, otherwise they would not delete part of the quotes without using ellipsis and repeatedly take things out of context.
They quote true things but take it out of context and delete part of the quotes. The quote is true but only properly understood and taken in context:
http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html
The only issue I found so far with this website is that in part 4 it says
"But to deliberately forge St. Thomas Aquinas' medicinal manual for the soul - the Summa, well that can be criminal."
St. Thomas Aquinas could be wrong and he says it in such case we must believe in the Church and not him. Not every word that comes from theologians and Saints are infallible
-
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.
Could you give me some examples of their deceptive means? What was the question in fact when you pointed out to them ?
Do you remember when was your question? I could search on their e-exchange archive to see how they have answered.
I don't like MHFM on the personal level, but so far I'm looking sincerely for proofs that they use deception methods.
The fact that I don't like the way the treat other people does not mean I can say that they use false docuмents or lies.
If you read the below articles you will see that they take quotes out of context and delete part of quotes that do not suit their purpose. They are deceptive in the same way as the devil by lying with the truth.
Satan: No, you shall not die the death.
This was true. They did not die when they ate. But their souls died and death entered the world. Satan conveniently left this part out.
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
When they ate their eyes were opened and they learned evil for the first time and also good as opposed to evil and what happens when one avoids good and does evil whereas before they did not know this. The learned good as what happens when evil is done and the punishment that is avoided when good is done instead of evil. But he failed to mention that point.
The Dimonds say Pope such and such said this, but the don't mention or stress the part they left out or the context where he would appear to contradict himself if you read something else he wrote or read earlier or later in the same docuмent they quote which would contradict their fanciful interpretation. Of course the Popes they quote do not contradict themselves but they contradict the Dimonds interpration of EENS.
They are more effectively deceptive than most human beings because they lie with the truth. And they know this, otherwise they would not delete part of the quotes without using ellipsis and repeatedly take things out of context.
They quote true things but take it out of context and delete part of the quotes. The quote is true but only properly understood and taken in context:
http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD_BOK.html
The only issue I found so far with this website is that in part 4 it says
"But to deliberately forge St. Thomas Aquinas' medicinal manual for the soul - the Summa, well that can be criminal."
St. Thomas Aquinas could be wrong and he says it in such case we must believe in the Church and not him. Not every word that comes from theologians and Saints are infallible
Did you miss part two?
This needs to go in the feeneyite section. Do you trust your judgement to interpret the Bible and understand Church teach more than Aquinas?
How about in regards to the above and in regards to Trent? Do you trust your ability interpret Trent more than you trust Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori to do so?
Please stick with the OP of this thread or go to the Feeneyite section. By your signature you seem to have already come to a conclusion. If you are sincere and looking for answers ask in the appropriate section. If you are trying to teach, teach someone else. I say that with all due respect.