Author Topic: The Dimonds latest  (Read 3653 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cathedra

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 497
  • Reputation: +0/-0
The Dimonds latest
« on: August 20, 2013, 02:58:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/?p=10#.UhMhrz4sabN

    And they answered this to someone in their "e-exchanges":

    "Fourth, as we have explained quite clearly and consistently, someone can erroneously hold explicit ‘baptism of desire’ in good faith for a certain period time, without being a heretic, until they see the dogmatic evidence which contradicts it and the refutations of the arguments advanced for it. However, after seeing the facts which refute it, such as those covered in the article and in our material, to hold even explicit ‘baptism of desire’ is to demonstrate profound bad will.  It is to contradict Catholic teaching obstinately and become a heretic. That would apply to St. Alphonsus if he lived today. If he saw the evidence presented against his own explanation, and obstinately adhered to the position he articulated, he would certainly become a heretic. The problem is that you only have faith in man, not in God; and you measure things not by the facts of God’s revelation, but on the basis of whether the fallible opinions of men conform to them".

    Offline Cathedra

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 497
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #1 on: August 20, 2013, 03:07:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They have certainly been reading this forum or someone told them about what is being posted here.

    They specifically refer to Ambrose:

    The attempt of one BOD supporter recently came to our attention.  According to this truly disgusting liar and heretic to whom we shall refer as ‘Amb.,’ MHFM’s assertion that St. Alphonsus cited the wrong part of Trent in his explanation of BOD is not true.  ‘Amb.’ says that it’s false for us to assert that Alphonsus referenced Sess. 14, Chap. 4 (the wrong part of Trent) as a basis for his concept; for St. Alphonsus used the Latin word ‘iuxta.’

    St. Alphonsus wrote: “… baptism whose place it [‘baptism of blowing’] supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed.”

    Amb.’ claims that the Latin word iuxta doesn’t mean ‘according to’ in this passage.  It’s not a citation/reference; rather, ‘Amb.’ declares, iuxta simply means ‘like.’  According to him, St. Alphonsus wasn’t teaching that the concept he articulated in that sentence is found or taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4.  No, not at all.  According to ‘Amb.’, Alphonsus was simply teaching that a similar or like idea can be found in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent.

    Amb.’ denounced our assertion, that St. Alphonsus actually misquoted Trent, as blatant ‘ignorance or dishonesty.’  Interestingly, ‘Amb.’ then proceeded to completely misquote the Council of Trent’s teaching in Sess. 6, Chap. 4.  He employed the outrageously false translation ‘except through’ instead of ‘without’ which totally perverts the meaning of the Latin word ‘sine’ and Trent’s text.  Ironically, it also powerfully demonstrates ‘Amb’s’ blatant ‘ignorance or dishonesty.’  To deliberately use the ‘except through’ mistranslation, after being made aware that it’s false, is a mortal sin.

    Before responding further, we should probably inform the heretic ‘Amb.’ that Fr. Jean Marc Rulleau and Fr. Francois Laisney – priests of the Society of St. Pius X who authored books in favor of ‘baptism of desire’ – both quote St. Alphonsus’ passage.  In their books they both render iuxta and St. Alphonsus’ use of it in regard to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent with the same meaning we have given to it.  They both understand and quote iuxta as a citation/reference, with the meaning of ‘according to.’


    There is more referencing of Ambrose in that article of course.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18302
    • Reputation: +10162/-4816
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #2 on: August 20, 2013, 08:41:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is actually why I started the BoD status quaestionis thread.

    I believe that St. Alphonsus was wrong, but to call explicit BoD heresy is absolutely ridiculous, and not only are the Dimonds doing no service to the defense of EENS by making such extreme statements, but they're getting to the point of putting their own souls at risk.

    As I've pointed out, BoD is a matter of speculative theology.  BoD cannot be demonstrated as revealed due to unanimous consent from the Church Fathers, nor has it been demonstrated to derive implicitly from revealed dogma.  Therefore it cannot be said to be part of the Deposit of Revelation.  On the flip side, however, the rejection of BoD cannot be derived from existing Church teaching as to be understood as "de fide".  Several Church Fathers rejected it explicitly, but again, that's not enough to say it was revealed anymore than it's enough for St. Augustine to have tentatively floated the idea for it to be seen as constituting revelation.

    I've read the reasoning made by the Church Doctors who accepted explicit BoD, and ... with all due respect ... it's unconvincing and does NOT rely upon syllogism which would implicitly derive it from any defined Catholic dogma.  Their arguments are very weak.  St. Robert Bellarmine says that the contrary "would seem too harsh."  That's it; that was all he had.  He was writing after Trent, into which he had a lot of input, and failed to cite Trent in support of his argument.  Theology manuals widely used in seminaries AFTER Trent treated explicit BoD as a disputed question.  St. Alphonsus cites Trent for his argument, but I believe that he was wrong in its interpretation.  St. Thomas' argument frankly makes no sense, but certainly again does not implicitly derive BoD for catechumens implicitly from any defined doctrine.  He talks about how sacraments are visible signs of an invisible reality, and that the invisible can be had without the visible.  Does that mean I can become a priest by desire and start offering Mass?  No, like Holy Orders, Baptism is a sacrament that imparts character (which is another word for a supernatural faculty and potency), and the argument is just like Holy Orders cannot be had in its invisible reality, so Baptism cannot either because it's one of the "character" Sacraments.  Yes, I can have perfect contrition combined with a desire to approach the Sacrament of Confession, and that can restore sanctifying grace, but that's not a "character" thing at all.  It's a different kind of Sacrament.  And St. Alphonsus DOES argue from an analogy with Confession, but IMO that's clearly wrong.  Otherwise, I'll just go put on my priestly garments right now and offer Mass; you're all welcome to attend my Mass of Desire.

    So in the status questionis thread, I asked for people to demonstrate how BoD can be considered derived truth and to get away from this endless battle of citations from one authority or another.  It needs to be demonstrated how BoD or for that matter its rejection (cf. my problem with the Dimonds) derives from revealed dogma.

    What's interesting is that you can come CLOSE to making the case for either one, and it's VERY TELLING to me regarding the status of BoD that BOTH sides have made claims of their position being "de fide".  That BY ITSELF proves that this remains a disputed question.  If two OPPOSITE opinions can be declared de fide by those who profess the Catholic faith (excluding overt modernists and the like), then it's clearly, by its very definition, in the state of disputed question.

    Now, that's on the EXPLICIT BOD front.

    On the implicit BoD side, if someone could convince me that this exists, then I see no reason to reject Vatican II in substance.  That was what I was trying to flush out with my previous thread.

    And I wonder if the Dimonds were reading that thread also.  Here's the question I would pose to the Dimonds.  I actually don't buy explicit BoD and think that the arguments against it far outweigh the arguments for it, but I don't think that those who accept explicit BoD are heretics.  Does that make me a heretic?

    On the other side, those who accuse "Feeneyites" and people like myself of heresy, what if I tell you that I would immediately and unquestioningly accept explicit BoD with the assent of unquestioning supernatural faith were the Church to formally define it, but that I disagree with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine.  While you might call me rash for doing so, does that make me a heretic given my statement that I would immediately accept with the assent of faith any dogmatic definition of the Church regarding the existence of BoD?

    What's interesting is that I imagine both the Dimonds and the anti-Feeneyites (SSPV, Sanborn, Dolan, CMRI, etc.) would call me a heretic.  In other words, I'd probably be denounced as a heretic by BOTH sides.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3552
    • Reputation: +4165/-317
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #3 on: August 20, 2013, 08:54:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ambrose, you've been excommunicated from the Dimondite Church.  Good job.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #4 on: August 20, 2013, 09:43:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Am I understanding correctly that the Dimonds are laymen, with little or no seminary training, little or no theological training who for one reason or another say practically every living priest is invalid? If all of this is accurate, why are they accorded any more respect than Pope Michael I?


    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #5 on: August 20, 2013, 10:20:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    And I wonder if the Dimonds were reading that thread also.  Here's the question I would pose to the Dimonds.  I actually don't buy explicit BoD and think that the arguments against it far outweigh the arguments for it, but I don't think that those who accept explicit BoD are heretics.  Does that make me a heretic?


    Would you say that explicit BoD needs to be rejected now that we can see where it has ended up or would you just merely agree to disagree with explicit BoD adherents?

    Offline Capt McQuigg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4666
    • Reputation: +2620/-9
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #6 on: August 20, 2013, 10:53:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Am I understanding correctly that the Dimonds are laymen, with little or no seminary training, little or no theological training who for one reason or another say practically every living priest is invalid? If all of this is accurate, why are they accorded any more respect than Pope Michael I?


    They put on really entertaining videos on youtube and they spark a lot of discussion.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18302
    • Reputation: +10162/-4816
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #7 on: August 20, 2013, 11:08:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Alcuin
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    And I wonder if the Dimonds were reading that thread also.  Here's the question I would pose to the Dimonds.  I actually don't buy explicit BoD and think that the arguments against it far outweigh the arguments for it, but I don't think that those who accept explicit BoD are heretics.  Does that make me a heretic?


    Would you say that explicit BoD needs to be rejected now that we can see where it has ended up or would you just merely agree to disagree with explicit BoD adherents?


    I would argue that explicit BoD needs to be rejected, but would not go to the lengths of denouncing someone who accepts explicit BoD as heretics.

    On the other side, however, those who label Feeneyites as heretics are doing EXACTLY what the Dimonds have done.  Both sides are elevating conclusions based upon various dogmatic sources to the level of being "De Fide" in themselves.  Regardless of how STRONG we think those arguments may be, they're still CONCLUSIONS that we've drawn with our fallible logic, and consequently cannot have the certainty of faith and be considered strictly "De Fide".  One might even ARGUE that they're "De Fide" but the consciences of others cannot be bound with the certainty of faith based on our argument, because perhaps they do not follow our logic or can attempt to make some logical distinction that would avoid what we see as an inevitable conclusion.

    So, for instance, in the case of St. Alphonsus, the Dimonds argue that he would be a heretic if he were alive today, confronted with the Dimonds' arguments, and not reach the same conclusions.  BoDers argue that there's an implicit saltem in voto attached to all the EENS dogmatic declarations.  So when they read "Outside of the Church there is no salvation", those who accept that dogma are not heretics, but what they do is argue about what it means to be "within the Church", i.e. can you be in the Church by way of your desire to enter it.

    To me the "faithful" and the "subject to the Roman Pontiff" requirements for salvation are very strong arguments AGAINST explicit BoD, but even then the BoD advocates would say that you can be subject to the Roman Pontiff "in voto".  So they make the dreaded "distinction".  And THAT is precisely why the Church needs to make new dogmatic declarations every once in a while despite the fact that nothing new has been revealed since the death of the last Apostle; it's because people make distinctions regarding defined dogma and draw conclusions from defined dogma, and then the Church must intervene to make judgment about said distinctions / conclusions.


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2424/-11
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #8 on: August 20, 2013, 11:10:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I stand by what I wrote:  http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26281&min=0&num=5

    The fact that the Dimond boys do not see it changes nothing.  If anyone on here wants doubts what i am saying, you can check what I wrote with an online translator.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18302
    • Reputation: +10162/-4816
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #9 on: August 20, 2013, 11:16:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just stop attacking the Dimond brothers ad hominen.  That also serves no constructive purpose but actually pushes them more towards a bitter zeal and labelling their opponents as "bad willed" -- in that lack of charity you yourselves may be contributing to causing harm to their souls.  They are also souls loved by God, created in His Image and Likeness, whom He desires to save.  They have done GREAT work on behalf of the faith.  They in fact are great defenders of the most attacked Catholic dogma today.  Their work on "How the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Churhc" was a masterpiece in apologetics, and they give these booklets away for next to nothing.

    If you want to push against their arguments, go ahead, but stop personally attacking them.  I hear the nonsense about their not being "really monks".  I'm so sick of hearing that, as the first monastics did not have formal ecclesiastical approval, nor do groups like Father Kelly's nuns even exist with any kind of ecclesastical sanction.  We're in an emergency situation within the Church.

    Offline Cathedra

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 497
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #10 on: August 20, 2013, 11:42:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Just stop attacking the Dimond brothers ad hominen.  That also serves no constructive purpose but actually pushes them more towards a bitter zeal and labelling their opponents as "bad willed" -- in that lack of charity you yourselves may be contributing to causing harm to their souls.  They are also souls loved by God, created in His Image and Likeness, whom He desires to save.  They have done GREAT work on behalf of the faith.  They in fact are great defenders of the most attacked Catholic dogma today.  Their work on "How the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Churhc" was a masterpiece in apologetics, and they give these booklets away for next to nothing.

    If you want to push against their arguments, go ahead, but stop personally attacking them.  I hear the nonsense about their not being "really monks".  I'm so sick of hearing that, as the first monastics did not have formal ecclesiastical approval, nor do groups like Father Kelly's nuns even exist with any kind of ecclesastical sanction.  We're in an emergency situation within the Church.


    Upon further consideration, i have concluded that perhaps we have to concede that they may be real monks, but of course they don't speak, live, act or behave like real monks, and they break the Holy Rule of St. Benedict too, and they are Sarabaites according to the very same Rule.

    That's why i asked somewhere, what makes a real monk?


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #11 on: August 20, 2013, 11:47:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #12 on: August 20, 2013, 11:48:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Just stop attacking the Dimond brothers ad hominen.  That also serves no constructive purpose but actually pushes them more towards a bitter zeal and labelling their opponents as "bad willed" -- in that lack of charity you yourselves may be contributing to causing harm to their souls.  They are also souls loved by God, created in His Image and Likeness, whom He desires to save.  They have done GREAT work on behalf of the faith.  They in fact are great defenders of the most attacked Catholic dogma today.  Their work on "How the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic Churhc" was a masterpiece in apologetics, and they give these booklets away for next to nothing.

    If you want to push against their arguments, go ahead, but stop personally attacking them.  I hear the nonsense about their not being "really monks".  I'm so sick of hearing that, as the first monastics did not have formal ecclesiastical approval, nor do groups like Father Kelly's nuns even exist with any kind of ecclesastical sanction.  We're in an emergency situation within the Church.


    St. Benedict himself provides the most damning testimony against Pete and Mike:
    Quote
    I would like curious catholic to point out which of the following best fits the description of  Mike and Pete Dimond; this is taken from the Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 1: On the Kinds of Monks. I'll try not to give any clues... really:

    It is well known that there are four kinds of monks.
    The first kind are the Cenobites:
    those who live in monasteries
    and serve under a rule and an Abbot.

    The second kind are the Anchorites or Hermits:
    those who,
    no longer in the first fervor of their reformation,
    but after long probation in a monastery,
    having learned by the help of many brethren
    how to fight against the devil,
    go out well armed from the ranks of the community
    to the solitary combat of the desert.
    They are able now,
    with no help save from God,
    to fight single-handed against the vices of the flesh
    and their own evil thoughts.

    The third kind of monks, a detestable kind, are the Sarabaites.
    These, not having been tested,
    as gold in the furnace (Wis. 3:6),
    by any rule or by the lessons of experience,
    are as soft as lead.
    In their works they still keep faith with the world,
    so that their tonsure marks them as liars before God.
    They live in twos or threes, or even singly, without a shepherd,
    in their own sheepfolds and not in the Lord's.
    Their law is the desire for self-gratification:
    whatever enters their mind or appeals to them,
    that they call holy;
    what they dislike, they regard as unlawful
    .


    The fourth kind of monks are those called Gyrovagues.
    These spend their whole lives tramping from province to province,
    staying as guests in different monasteries
    for three or four days at a time.
    Always on the move, with no stability,
    they indulge their own wills
    and succumb to the allurements of gluttony,
    and are in every way worse than the Sarabaites.
    Of the miserable conduct of all such
    it is better to be silent than to speak.

    Passing these over, therefore,
    let us proceed, with God's help,
    to lay down a rule for the strongest kind of monks, the Cenobites.

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +2100/-18
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #13 on: August 20, 2013, 11:54:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I actually enjoy a few of their videos, just as I have enjoyed exactly ONE book by Scott Hahn. :furtive: What I'm saying is, I don't completely discount what is said or written based solely on who's saying or writing it. The Dimonds are, in modern lingo, extremists; however, they make SOME valid points that can't be ignored - except by the Conciliarist cheerleaders.
    "Kindness is for fools! They [modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses, but they ought to be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can. War is not made with charity. It is a struggle, a duel." -- Pope St. Pius X

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    The Dimonds latest
    « Reply #14 on: August 20, 2013, 11:56:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Charlemagne
    I actually enjoy a few of their videos, just as I have enjoyed exactly ONE book by Scott Hahn. :furtive: What I'm saying is, I don't completely discount what is said or written based solely on whose saying or writing it. The Dimonds are, in modern lingo, extremists; however, they make SOME valid points that can't be ignored - except by the Conciliarist cheerleaders.


    But are these points not to be found elsewhere? Yes. Maybe without the vitriol, yes. But the fullness of Truth is not with them. Why encourage their vile attitudes?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16