Author Topic: The Dimonds: "In your demonic, schismatic faces" (Read 4256 times)

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #20 on:** April 26, 2014, 12:05:37 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Fr. James Wathen on The Dimond Brothers (9/5/2004)

1. They call themselves "Brothers," but neither of them has ever made a standard novitiate, which the Code says is strictly necessary for professed religious. They call themselves "Brothers" because this lends prestige to their opinions.

2. The two Brothers do not pretend to live a monastic life. Their vocation, as they see it, demands that they busy themselves in controversy. They think that the Church is better served by their spending their time producing various kinds of works of theological criticism, than in prayer and contemplation, which is the traditional obligation of monks.

3. Neither of the Brothers has had the opportunity for normal catechetical instruction, let alone theological training. They imagine that this does not matter, and it does not to the un-instructed. To those of us who have "taken all the courses," their inadequacy is a glaring reality.

4. Like all other "Sedevacantists," they have an appalling hatred of Pope John Paul II, as if he alone were the main cause of the Church's present malaise. He is not. The Church's present condition is due to the Great Conspiracy, the World Revolution, about which we have been warned by popes of former times and by Christ, our Lady, and other messengers from Heaven. This Conspiracy has filled the offices of the Church with its agents, all of whom are bent on converting it into the "religious" arm of the One World Church.

5. In order to get Pope John Paul out of his office, it is necessary, as they see it, to get him out of the Church. Any theological principle which prevents them from doing this must be ignored or denied, and anyone who does not see things their way is a "heretic," a "schismatic," or something of the sort. I did not see whether Brother Peter considers me in or outside the Church.

6. The theological dogma which they find obstructive to their view of things is the Indelible Character of Baptism," which we are taught about in the earliest years of our instruction. This Indelible Character signifies that he who has received it has been made an adoptive child of God, a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, and given a certain equality with Christ in the love of the Father (because he is a member of Christ). This adoption cannot be lost by any sin or renunciation; it remains for his eternal glory or shame. This is one of the chief lessons our Lord taught us in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

7. Certain texts of popes and saints seem to suggest that an individual can be expelled or can himself withdraw from the communion of the faithful. All baptized Catholics, whether they are clerics or lay people, can estrange themselves from God and Christ and their holy Mother the Church by sin, including the sin of heresy (which is nothing more than the denial of a doctrine), but they can never become "ex-Catholics," so that they would lose the Indelible Mark of Baptism, and their status of adoptive children.

8. I do not want to overlook the fact that there is nothing heretical in "Brother's" list. It is surely not a heresy, nor an act of schism, to maintain that John Paul II is the true Pope, even though a bad one, or to include his name in the Canon of the Mass. Neither is it a heresy to say that "once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I think Sedevacantists are inclined to think that it is grave heresy to disagree with them.

9. I have repeated often enough that as Catholics and as human beings we have both the right and the obligation to judge the opinions, positions, and ideas of everyone else. Our life in this world consists in making judgements about other people--whether they can be trusted, whether they are telling the truth, whether they will repay us if we lend to them, etc.; and to judge their opinions, whether they are true or false, right or wrong. As Catholics, we must always be wary of heresy from every quarter, including him who sits on the Chair of St. Peter--as he is not personally infallible.

10. The law of the Church forbids us to pass judgement on the STATUS of the reigning pope, whether he is the pope, whether we are bound to obey him in all religious matters that are not contrary to the Faith. I trust it is not necessary to repeat that the pope is infallible in his TEACHING OFFICE, not in his GOVERNING OFFICE. This is why we do not have to accept the New Mass, because its issuance is a part of the governing office (even though THERE IS NO LAW ESTABLISHING IT AS THE LITURGY OF THE ROMAN RITE).

10. Keep in mind also that there is a very great difference between the pope's or any other cleric's propounding erroneous views, which Pope John Paul does all the time, and their endeavoring to impose such views upon us as a matter of doctrine and salvation. Pope John Paul has never commanded us to believe any of his heretical opinions under pain of sin. Sedevacantists cannot comprehend this simple truth.

11. Sedavacantists also have the idea that anything a legitimate pope teaches becomes a part of the "Sacred Magisterium." This is entirely wrong. Only those teachings which are conformable to the body of teaching which has accuмulated through the years from the days of the Apostles, whose teaching we refer to as the "Deposit of Faith" is a part of the Magisterium. Anything that is a variance therewith is not.

12. The two "Brothers" Dimond are evil little men. Without any authorization and without proper theological training, they have endeavored to establish themselves as teachers of the faithful and "certifiers" of all priests in this country. They make a lot of money with their misleading publications, tapes, etc., and they spend much time on the phone persuading people to stay away from the Masses of non-Sedevacantist priests. Who knows how many Catholics of good will have been persuaded to stay home for months on end, even years, rather than attend Mass, confess their sins, and receive Holy Communion? I urge everyone to give these men a wide berth; do not buy or circulate their materials, even those which are acceptable. Do not send them money. Beware of wolves in monk's habits. - Fr. James Wathen.

A few of Father Wathen's beliefs were even worse and more illogical than the Dimonds'; I never quite understood how this was possible since he was a Priest and his errors were so basic that it defies comprehension.

"Once a Catholic always a Catholic"? Did he even know what the SIN of HERESY was and its consequences???

Needless to say, he himself was guilty of some of the same things he accused the Dimonds of.

Oh, the irony.

patientiam · « **Reply #21 on:** April 27, 2014, 02:00:14 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

I dare you to read all these installments written specifically against their "Treatise" on EENS, here is part 1:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jun/jun30str.htm

In reading those installments you will find the docuмented fact that they twist and quote things out of context and blatantly misrepresent things to suit their own agenda.

It is Griff Ruby and yourself who twist things. Griff R. is the one who engages in Scholastic Dishonesty. Griff R. and you are schismatics. Ruby is such an absurd heretic that he thinks Martin Luther may have been mistaken in good faith:

Griff Ruby: “For example, prove to me that Martin Luther was a formal heretic, and as such the rightful recipient of the excommunication he received from Pope Leo X. Perhaps, he was only a material heretic? Who (but himself and God) can know? No one can ascertain his interior state, whether he himself knew himself to be a heretic or not. Perhaps he sincerely believed in his errors. Unlikely as that sounds, we'll never know…”

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Jul/jul21str.htm

That is demonic. Griff R. also believes in salvation for members of false religions, and for those who haven’t heard the Gospel. He makes that clear in his series. He also considers Lefebvre a saint, even though Lefebvre believed souls can be saved in any religion.

Griff R. also said that after he converted to Protestantism (which he considers Christianity) the best place for a new Christian to have gone was evangelical Protestantism! You are promoting the writing of a complete heretic and false convert. That’s not a surprise, because you are an unbeliever like him. Look at this incredible heresy he spews:

Griff Ruby: “Then I began regularly attending the Evangelical church, and learning from an extraordinarily wise and insightful pastor, for which I am grateful. Steering clear of divisive topics, he nevertheless found much to say of great value and interest, and much of what he taught holds up extremely well even today, in view of everything I have learned since. I cannot think of a better place for a new Christian to have gone. (Would even the pre-Vatican II Church have impressed me as much? I was in need of far more basic lessons than even their most basic. For example, what authority actually was, which Catholic catechists take for granted, presupposing that the listener already knows) And then one day the pastor left, and thus began a long exile and trek for his congregation.”

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

You are unbelievers and evil. You make many mortally sinful false accusations. You attack true Catholics and promote the writings of heretics in an attempt to subvert the Catholic faith.

Griff Ruby (left) and Sneakyticks (right):

crossbro · « **Reply #22 on:** April 27, 2014, 02:05:14 PM »

The Dimonds give food for thought.

But I cannot imagine true Benedictines taking a man's inheritance and then fighting him in court over it- to top it off rubbing it in his face and mocking him on the internet when they win.

have the Dimonds honestly earned anything they own- worked for a single thing ?

patientiam · « **Reply #23 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:28:36 PM »

Quote from: crossbro

But I cannot imagine true Benedictines taking a man's inheritance and then fighting him in court over it- to top it off rubbing it in his face and mocking him on the internet when they win.

have the Dimonds honestly earned anything they own- worked for a single thing ?

It is amazing how dishonest most people are on this forum. The man who sued the Dimond Brothers actually donated all the money they received. Think about that for a moment...

When one donates money to an organization, are they expecting to get it back? No, of course not. The notion is absurd, because implicit in the giving is the concept that one does not receive anything in return, in contradistinction to one who gives in order to receive something in return, which is the case when one buys something. Secondly, Most Holy Family Monastery is not a bank. It is a Church. Therefore, it is absurd to expect that one can give a donation, and then to expect the money to be returned to oneself as if one can simply park their money in MHFM, earn some interest over a few years, and then withdraw the funds whenever one feels inclined. The line that false traditionalists take on this issue is astoundingly dishonest. Can one imagine the supporters of the SSPX, who donate MILLIONS, suddenly turning around after their Disneyland seminary is built in Virginia (40 million in total), claiming that the SSPX “stole” their inheritance money, and taking the SSPX to court with all sorts of outrageously false accusations? No, of course not. And so neither is it a crime for MHFM to have kept the money donated to them, and to defend their reputation against the slander dished out by their enemies.

The Dimonds Brothers have worked much harder than most people will ever work, and they are fully deserving of both material support and of eternal life.

crossbro · « **Reply #24 on:** April 27, 2014, 08:40:30 PM »

Quote

It is amazing how dishonest most people are on this forum. The man who sued the Dimond Brothers actually donated all the money they received. Think about that for a moment...

The man moved into the monastery with the idea he was joining a religious order where he would spend the rest of his days. He signed the money over. After he left the Dimonds refused to give him $1.6 million of his inheritance.

Okay, so the Dimonds could legally take the money the man's parents left him.

Did they have to do that ? Was it moral ?

I would not have it in me to keep money from someone's inheritance, but apparently the Dimond brothers do.

And the monastery is not a church, it is a farm worth a ton of money that the Dimonds were able to snatch when one of their followers died.

Like I said, everything the Dimonds have came from the sweat or labor of someone else.