I'll debate anyone on this forum
I look forward to seeing you on the threads...
I'm going to continue to follow my own advice
Look Mate, I'm no apologetic for the Dimonds, but accusations demand proof.
Of course, follow your own advice, it matters not to me. I'm not here to convince you of following the Dimonds....
The difference here is that my proof isn't good enough for you. That's fine, I'm not an authority. The only thing that will truly settle this for good, is for a Holy Pope to start making pronouncements against this sort of thing. We're in the wild west right now and everyone has a revolver and we all shoot from the hip. Our ammo is as soft as clay (or a virtual down-thumb) so no one falls down.
The real danger is thinking we're safe and secure against the myriads of deceptions that can arise in our traditional movement. There aren't many people who can handle snakes without being bitten. The same goes for trad Catholics and self-styled breakaway leaders. I'm not saying you can't discern truth from fiction, but you ought to be humble and wary going into it or you're likely to get tripped up somewhere.
With the Dimonds, we've already seen the fruit of failed prophecy. They are known only for their what they fight against, not for their charity, not for their spiritual life, not for what they pray for. For what they are, the lack of formal training, the lack of bonifides, and the lack of ecclesiastical office, they do far more damage than they could ever fix themselves. Anyone who does credit them with "conversion" is going to have quite a task removing all the parasites from their thought process.
Someone with more training could delve deeper through those murky waters. If you think you got what it takes, great, but it seems like you have fallen into their cult following. Ladislaus sounds like he's got stable footing here, though I am much less apt to give them any slack because I know my limitations.
So my bullet is a warning shot. If it stings, you might consider moving your position. Hopefully, it went over your head.
Of course not! These guys are crazy.
Someone I can agree with!
And roscoe, is there something I missed in Acta Apostolicae Sedis?
"Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.
"On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record.
"Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. Marius Crovini, notary."
Or do you believe Feeney had the authority to place conditions on his appearance in Rome? You think Crovini made it up on his own?