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".

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.

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?

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.  

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.  

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?

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?