Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: TheKnightVigilant on January 16, 2014, 07:24:36 PM
-
I know the Dimond brothers are not popular here, but regardless this is an excellent debate and well worth listening to. Peter Dimond obliterates an extremely anti-Catholic protestant on the topic of Justification. Dimond's opponent is so flustered by the end that he resorts to the mention of clerical abuse scandals and other issues totally irrelevant to the topic in question. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI
-
I look at the Dimond brothers website sometimes and have seen many of their videos. I treat them similar to how I treat Traditio. I think there is a lot of good there but also some bad. I think others here avoid them completely and think they are totally unreliable. I know Matthew, the owner of this forum doesn't think highly of them.
-
I'd caution against them for one more reason, the persons involved sometimes have no idea they are being recorded or that these things are put online. Even if our opponent is a heretic, we should never resort to being so unjust.
In this case it is heretic v. heretic.
-
I have learned a lot from the Dimond channel. But there are a couple flags against them for me:
1- They receive communion at an EO parish ?
2- That Eric Hoyle lawsuit. Okay so Eric Hoyle gave them like 1.25 million. From what I understand Eric had inherited that money and then became excited about joining the monastery.
So this lawsuit goes on for some 4 years and the Dimond brothers win and get to keep the money. The Dimond brothers argue it was a donation, Hoyle says he gave it to them under false pretenses. Hoyle said he had an agreement that 750k would be given back to him.
Yes, legally if Hoyle gave them the money then it falls under the category of "A fool and his money are soon parted."
That is a lot of money, I just cannot understand in the Christian sense why the Dimonds did not give the money back or at least not a large portion of it. It is not like the Dimonds earned that money.
So even though they won the lawsuit and they have the legal right to keep the money, I don't understand the Dimond thinking that they are justified in the moral sense of keeping that money.
Just my opinion.
-
I have learned a lot from the Dimond channel. But there are a couple flags against them for me:
1- They receive communion at an EO parish ?
2- That Eric Hoyle lawsuit. Okay so Eric Hoyle gave them like 1.25 million. From what I understand Eric had inherited that money and then became excited about joining the monastery.
So this lawsuit goes on for some 4 years and the Dimond brothers win and get to keep the money. The Dimond brothers argue it was a donation, Hoyle says he gave it to them under false pretenses. Hoyle said he had an agreement that 750k would be given back to him.
Yes, legally if Hoyle gave them the money then it falls under the category of "A fool and his money are soon parted."
That is a lot of money, I just cannot understand in the Christian sense why the Dimonds did not give the money back or at least not a large portion of it. It is not like the Dimonds earned that money.
So even though they won the lawsuit and they have the legal right to keep the money, I don't understand the Dimond thinking that they are justified in the moral sense of keeping that money.
Just my opinion.
Because those two individuals have ZERO sense of justice. The way they behave outwardly reveals, at least partially, their level internal of corruption.
-
I have learned a lot from the Dimond channel. But there are a couple flags against them for me:
1- They receive communion at an EO parish ?
2- That Eric Hoyle lawsuit. Okay so Eric Hoyle gave them like 1.25 million. From what I understand Eric had inherited that money and then became excited about joining the monastery.
So this lawsuit goes on for some 4 years and the Dimond brothers win and get to keep the money. The Dimond brothers argue it was a donation, Hoyle says he gave it to them under false pretenses. Hoyle said he had an agreement that 750k would be given back to him.
Yes, legally if Hoyle gave them the money then it falls under the category of "A fool and his money are soon parted."
That is a lot of money, I just cannot understand in the Christian sense why the Dimonds did not give the money back or at least not a large portion of it. It is not like the Dimonds earned that money.
So even though they won the lawsuit and they have the legal right to keep the money, I don't understand the Dimond thinking that they are justified in the moral sense of keeping that money.
Just my opinion.
Because those two individuals have ZERO sense of justice. The way they behave outwardly reveals, at least partially, their level internal of corruption.
If when Eric gave them the money it was for something specific- like for building a planned chapel, then I would agree he is not entitled to any money back.
But if he gave them the money in the sense that he felt he were joining the community and basically saying, "Out of trust here is the money, I trust you, I am joining this community as a brother and I know this money is for the benefit of us all." Then I think they should have given the money back when it fell through. It would have been the right thing to do in my opinion.
-
.
It's interesting to see, there are 19 comments total, so far, and they are all supportive of Br. Peter Dimond: Could the MHFM be deleting comments against their side? They posted the recording so they can control the comments too, correct? Normally, I would have to edit such posts, but here I only had to index (Wintters*) one letter in one word. Veritas Rex was the most recent post, from an agnostic "with no ax to grind" who says the debate was an easy call by academic concerns alone, and that Keith Thompson "has no Biblical evidence to support his position, and his case is weakened by his reliance on the Reformers' opinion and not Scripture."
All comments (19)
Share your thoughts
Stream
Marko Ivančičević
20 hours ago
you destroyed his religion in your opening statement. even some of his passages destroy him but he's just blind.
Reply
·
Xm Flash
1 day ago
Keith got destroyed in this debate. Concerning 1:00:00 it was hilarious to see him getting owned on greek grammar. Yeah, total predestination is not a biblical concept, it's clear people have a will and choice in the manner of choosing God or not. Calvinists perform mental gymnastics to justify their positions. 
Reply
·
4
ST PETER
2 days ago
God Bless the Dimond bros, in defending the truth Catholic faith and trampling under foot the V2 church and all of the other false Christian sects and false pagan religions.
DOMINUS VOBIScuм
Reply
·
8
peacefullmonk
2 days ago
thank you for sharing this Brother it is very informational and good for a true catholic to know how to defend the churches teaching James 2:24 clearly states you need works and it is so sad to see how lost this person is thank you again for posting.
Reply
·
5
William Burke via Google+
17 hours ago (edited)
Hooray Brother Peter Dimond is debating a calvinist… I hate calvinism.
Reply
·
4
ST PETER
2 days ago
It's a shame that Mr Thompson rejects the Catholic position on justification. By rejecting a single article of the Catholic faith like Mr Thompson has, he has put himself outside the ark of salvation, and will no doubt perish when the flood comes.
Reply
·
8
Joseph Gelfuso
3 hours ago
Brother Diamond can't these people see the truth and convert ??? I am not trying to be mean but you would think this guy is not of the age of reason to not see the truth and convert??? Are people that bad willed or am I missing something.
Reply
·
Veritas Rex
13 hours ago
There is no doubt that Mr. Thompson has no Biblical evidence to support his position, and his case is weakened by his reliance on the Reformers' opinion and not scripture. Being an Agnostic I have no ax to grind, but in a simply academic format, Bro. Peter Dimond wins this debate hands down.
Reply
·
DocDOoM1979
13 hours ago
It was a good debate hopefully Keith will convert to the catholic faith .
Reply
·
1
Justin Link
1 day ago
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
Jesus and Mary I love you, save souls.
Reply
·
6
underesteemed
1 day ago
One fallacy this guy pushes is that because there are false belivers, that proves that no true believer can be lost.
Reply
·
1
Tanner Wintters [*=n]
1 day ago
Thank you Bro. Peter for putting this Protestant scuм in his place.
This Keith Thompson is an absolute liar and false shepherd, we are NOT justified simply by faith alone.
We cannot, as Martin Luther, puts it "commit murder and fornication a thousand times a day" and still be saved just by believing in Jesus.
If that were the case, then the countless martyrs of the Church would not have needed to stand up for and die for the Truth. For such good works are "unnecessary".
According to "Justification through Faith Alone", we could promote the Evolution Lie, practice Marxism, support the genocidal Jєωιѕн state of Israel, but "just so long as we believe" we are saved.
In fact, converting people is a good work. So we shouldn't proselytize, even if all they have to do is "believe"?
Yet another one of the many reasons I left Protestantism. Everything about them is so hypocritical, tagged on, and improvised to fit the view of one of the worst heretics in history. (Who supposedly "invited the Devil into his a*us")
Thank you Brothers for posting this. I look forward to your next video.
May Our Lord and Our Lady bless and protect you and all other True Catholics.
Reply
·
5
SirJCrusader777
2 days ago
This is the best refutation of Calvinism i have ever heard. After i abandoned Seventh day Adventism i was actually leaning towards Calvinism, but God used Most Holy Family Monastery to bring me to the True Catholic faith, and i will always be eternally grateful to God for MHFM. God bless you Brother Peter, and thank you for your defense of the true faith of Christ.
Reply
·
6
bombardus
2 days ago
Interesting debate...
Reply
·
5
lizjasso
1 day ago
Bro. Peter Dimond won. Easy. The other guy could not see it even if it hit him on the face.
Reply
·
1
Benjamin Ridley
2 days ago
Brother Diamond, you are a brilliant arguer!
Reply
·
5
TheHandThatMadeUs
2 days ago
As www.schismatic-home-aloner.com has already eloquently stated- 1) there is no salvation outside of Christ (Acts 4:12), and 2) you cannot belong to Christ if you reject parts of His revelation and/or don't adhere to His Church (Mt. 28:20; Mt. 18:17). That means you cannot belong to Christ if you reject the Papacy (Mt. 16:18-19) or the Eucharist (John 6:53) or Confession (John 20:23) or that justification is not by faith alone (James 2:24), etc.
Non-Catholics who claim to follow Christ actually reject His teaching in many areas. They are thus not of Christ.
They are as St Peter says: 2 Peter 2:2 [1] But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [2] And many shall follow their riotousnesses, THROUGH WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH SHALL BE EVIL SPOKEN OF.
Reply
·
6
schismatic-home-aloner.com
2 days ago <-------------[no comment is showing, but 17 +votes.]
17
Ora Et Labora via Google+
2 days ago
Another debate!
I'm going to download to my mp3 player to listen to [it].
Thanks. Ave Maria.
Reply
·
9
-
I have posted on their YT videos and my comments have been deleted.
And I did not believe the tone or content of those comments were so far out they deserved to be censored.
-
I have posted on their YT videos and my comments have been deleted.
And I did not believe the tone or content of those comments were so far out they deserved to be censored.
Well, your comments won't be deleted here!
Can you remember any of them? I'd like to know the things you posted, if you can recall. And in the future, please post here a copy of any such comments you make, so you can archive them and perhaps mention here when you noticed they were deleted.
Two can play this game, crossbro. I'm on YOUR side! HAHAHAHA
.
-
I have posted on their YT videos and my comments have been deleted.
And I did not believe the tone or content of those comments were so far out they deserved to be censored.
Well, your comments won't be deleted here!
Can you remember any of them? I'd like to know the things you posted, if you can recall. And in the future, please post here a copy of any such comments you make, so you can archive them and perhaps mention here when you noticed they were deleted.
Two can play this game, crossbro. I'm on YOUR side! HAHAHAHA
.
Not really, I recall once they made a video tearing down one group or another and I made a quip about the fact it states on their website they receive communion with a denom they would have to consider a heresy. I pointed out the irony.
That one got deleted.
-
Three down votes for the opening post already. From three morons who didn't even listen to the debate, no doubt. Heh.
-
I posted this debate on 'Catholic Answers Forum' and they took it down and banned me for life. They gave no reason why. This seems very strange since brother Dimond did not promote sedevacantism in that debate, but instead refuted calvinism.
'Catholic Answers Live' probably would not remove a thread if it was some protestant such as Joel Osteen or Billy Graham refuting calvinism. So if 'Catholic Answers Live' considers the Dimond's to be protestants, then why the double standard?
Also, if any of you have a registered nickname at Fisheaters Forum, then can you post this thread there? I am unable to do that since I am not registered there and apparently they are not registering any new persons.
-
I posted this debate on 'Catholic Answers Forum' and they took it down and banned me for life. They gave no reason why. This seems very strange since brother Dimond did not promote sedevacantism in that debate, but instead refuted calvinism.
This must be because of their unofficial policy that there is salvation everywhere else, but there is no salvation inside the Catholic Church. Whenever anyone claims to be following the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and not the conciliar sect, the CA moderators ban them because of their policy that there is no salvation there and only there.
-
The Dimond's are the target of much irrational hatred, even among the traditional Catholic community. I have no idea why. They've done more to promote and defend the faith than any of their detractors have, for sure and certain. They know their stuff. Meanwhile vile heretics like Michael Hoffman are showered with adulation in the same circles. Makes absolutely no sense.
Not that I'm in agreement with the Dimond's on every issue. But I can say that they helped bring me and my brother out of the abyss of atheism and into the Catholic faith. Their material has also helped my mother, who was baptised into the Catholic Church before Vatican II but fell away from the faith and raised us as non-observant protestants, return to the Church now in her 60's.
-
The Dimond's are the target of much irrational hatred, even among the traditional Catholic community. I have no idea why.
You don't know why? The main reason is because they do not believe in BOD or BOB and they oppose and condemn those who believe in it, especially those who believe you can be saved without faith in the incarnation and the trinity.
-
I posted this debate on 'Catholic Answers Forum' and they took it down and banned me for life. They gave no reason why. This seems very strange since brother Dimond did not promote sedevacantism in that debate, but instead refuted calvinism.
'Catholic Answers Live' probably would not remove a thread if it was some protestant such as Joel Osteen or Billy Graham refuting calvinism. So if 'Catholic Answers Live' considers the Dimond's to be protestants, then why the double standard?
Also, if any of you have a registered nickname at Fisheaters Forum, then can you post this thread there? I am unable to do that since I am not registered there and apparently they are not registering any new persons.
CAF is a joke.
They infracted me for posting the history of deceit and insubordination in defying Pope Paul VI on his stand against no female altar servers in which in 1972 he stated females could not serve in that capacity as altar servers were a minor order.
The infraction was for "campaigning".
This on a website where fαɢs everyday post demanding that sodomite marriage be accepted by the Church.
I have not been back since.
Do yourself a favor, don't give them or Catholic Radio a dime.
-
CAF is a joke.
CAF is a joke, yet most people would consider it Catholic and would also consider Cathinfo schismatic.
Just like the Novus Ordo is a joke, yet most people consider it Catholic and also consider the SSPX and CMRI and SSPV schismatic.
-
CAF is a joke.
CAF is a joke, yet most people would consider it Catholic and would also consider Cathinfo schismatic.
Just like the Novus Ordo is a joke, yet most people consider it Catholic and also consider the SSPX and CMRI and SSPV schismatic.
Do most people think that about SSPX etc. ?
Because most other Catholics I know just give me a blank stare when I mention SSPX.
NOMer Catholics who I feel I conservative and very educated on the RCC who would think would know, don't even know what SSPX is.
-
Do most people think that about SSPX etc. ?
I believe that most people who know about the SSPX think it is schismatic because they are acting independently from the conciliar sect which most people think is the Catholic Church.
-
Do most people think that about SSPX etc. ?
I believe that most people who know about the SSPX think it is schismatic because they are acting independently from the conciliar sect which most people think is the Catholic Church.
What saves the SSPX from schism is the very point that they emphatically deny, they are rejecting the teaching and laws of an antipope.
-
CAF is a joke.
CAF is a joke, yet most people would consider it Catholic and would also consider Cathinfo schismatic.
Just like the Novus Ordo is a joke, yet most people consider it Catholic and also consider the SSPX and CMRI and SSPV schismatic.
It just doesn't make any sense. Why would they not at least give a reason for banning me? My guess is that they have no reason to ban me. I mean brother Dimond wasn't attacking Rome, wasn't attacking Francis, wasn't attacking the new mass. Instead brother Dimond was attacking the heretical arguments on justification from a calvinist protestant heretic, while at the same time defending the Holy Catholic faith.
If anything, CAF should be looking into hiring brother Dimond to be on their team as one of their Catholic Answers apologists. I have never heard any of the Catholic Answers so called apologists do as well in a debate as what brother Dimond did in this debate. I mean brother Dimond totally destroyed that calvinist's false arguments.
-
The Dimond's are the target of much irrational hatred, even among the traditional Catholic community. I have no idea why.
You don't know why? The main reason is because they do not believe in BOD or BOB and they oppose and condemn those who believe in it, especially those who believe you can be saved without faith in the incarnation and the trinity.
More specifically, the Dimonds proclaim that BoD and BoB are HERESY.
They can't prove it, of course, but they SAY that they're proving it when they quote councils and popes and then use defective logic to reach their conclusions.
Because of them, and some others like them perhaps, BoB defenders presume that if someone does not agree with them and says that BoB is "not a dogma," then they must therefore be taking sides with the Dimonds. But that is not true.
.
-
The Dimond's are the target of much irrational hatred, even among the traditional Catholic community. I have no idea why.
You don't know why? The main reason is because they do not believe in BOD or BOB and they oppose and condemn those who believe in it, especially those who believe you can be saved without faith in the incarnation and the trinity.
More specifically, the Dimonds proclaim that BoD and BoB are HERESY.
They can't prove it, of course, but they SAY that they're proving it when they quote councils and popes and then use defective logic to reach their conclusions.
Because of them, and some others like them perhaps, BoB defenders presume that if someone does not agree with them and says that BoB is "not a dogma," then they must therefore be taking sides with the Dimonds. But that is not true.
.
Baptism of Desire is not a dogma. I challenge anyone reading this thread to provide the ex-cathedra statement or teaching from an infallible Church Council which DECLARED, PROMULGATED and DEFINED baptism of desire to be a Dogma.
And don't insult our intelligence by providing some statement from either the catechism, a saint or a theologian. Modernists point to fallible sources. Instead, gives us the infallible teaching itself. Also, don't direct us to some other thread that you claim gives the answer. Just post the teaching here in this thread.
-
Also, I don't understand all this bashing some of you are doing against the Most Holy Family Monastery. I don't see any of you getting the traditional Holy Catholic faith out there like they are doing on such a grand scale. I mean if you search for a Catholic video on the faith in Youtube, then most likely you will come across at least one MHFM video.
And I notice some of you applauding Michael Voris for standing up against Church officials and that he also calls on us to do the same. You have to be joking. Voris has stood up against Francis' crazy heretical comments like when???? Like NEVER !!
At least brother Dimond actually "says it like it is" when it comes to Francis and Vatican II. Voris embraces all of Vatican II. He is a modernist claiming to be a traditionalist.
-
Also, I don't understand all this bashing some of you are doing against the Most Holy Family Monastery. I don't see any of you getting the traditional Holy Catholic faith out there like they are doing on such a grand scale. I mean if you search for a Catholic video on the faith in Youtube, then most likely you will come across at least one MHFM video.
And I notice some of you applauding Michael Voris for standing up against Church officials and that he also calls on us to do the same. You have to be joking. Voris has stood up against Francis' crazy heretical comments like when???? Like NEVER !!
At least brother Dimond actually "says it like it is" when it comes to Francis and Vatican II. Voris embraces all of Vatican II. He is a modernist claiming to be a traditionalist.
What you are arguing here is a kettle black scenario.
Since one does MHFM post videos or rants that could be confused with charity or politeness ?
-
Also, I don't understand all this bashing some of you are doing against the Most Holy Family Monastery. I don't see any of you getting the traditional Holy Catholic faith out there like they are doing on such a grand scale. I mean if you search for a Catholic video on the faith in Youtube, then most likely you will come across at least one MHFM video.
And I notice some of you applauding Michael Voris for standing up against Church officials and that he also calls on us to do the same. You have to be joking. Voris has stood up against Francis' crazy heretical comments like when???? Like NEVER !!
At least brother Dimond actually "says it like it is" when it comes to Francis and Vatican II. Voris embraces all of Vatican II. He is a modernist claiming to be a traditionalist.
What you are arguing here is a kettle black scenario.
Since one does MHFM post videos or rants that could be confused with charity or politeness ?
Persons who claim that brother Dimond is uncharitable would also have to claim that many of the Catholic Saints and Doctors of the Church were also uncharitable. If you look at the writings from these Saints and Doctors on heretics, then it is virtually the same as what the Most Holy Family Monastery says. Stop bashing MHFM and begin realizing that they are the lone voice out there standing up for the true Holy Catholic faith as it was originally taught.
-
I wish there were many other traditional Catholic websites as comprehensive as the Dimond brothers' websites. If you know of any let me know. They certainly do a lot more and better proselytizing than any other group I know of.
-
Also, I don't understand all this bashing some of you are doing against the Most Holy Family Monastery. I don't see any of you getting the traditional Holy Catholic faith out there like they are doing on such a grand scale. I mean if you search for a Catholic video on the faith in Youtube, then most likely you will come across at least one MHFM video.
And I notice some of you applauding Michael Voris for standing up against Church officials and that he also calls on us to do the same. You have to be joking. Voris has stood up against Francis' crazy heretical comments like when???? Like NEVER !!
At least brother Dimond actually "says it like it is" when it comes to Francis and Vatican II. Voris embraces all of Vatican II. He is a modernist claiming to be a traditionalist.
What you are arguing here is a kettle black scenario.
Since one does MHFM post videos or rants that could be confused with charity or politeness ?
Persons who claim that brother Dimond is uncharitable would also have to claim that many of the Catholic Saints and Doctors of the Church were also uncharitable. If you look at the writings from these Saints and Doctors on heretics, then it is virtually the same as what the Most Holy Family Monastery says. Stop bashing MHFM and begin realizing that they are the lone voice out there standing up for the true Holy Catholic faith as it was originally taught.
Feel free to give me a break dude. What is this, puppy love ?
-
In fact, I dare anyone reading this Forum thread to point out one Catholic dogmatic teaching that the Dimond brothers reject. And don't say 'Baptism of Desire' because that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church
-
Also, I don't understand all this bashing some of you are doing against the Most Holy Family Monastery. I don't see any of you getting the traditional Holy Catholic faith out there like they are doing on such a grand scale. I mean if you search for a Catholic video on the faith in Youtube, then most likely you will come across at least one MHFM video.
And I notice some of you applauding Michael Voris for standing up against Church officials and that he also calls on us to do the same. You have to be joking. Voris has stood up against Francis' crazy heretical comments like when???? Like NEVER !!
At least brother Dimond actually "says it like it is" when it comes to Francis and Vatican II. Voris embraces all of Vatican II. He is a modernist claiming to be a traditionalist.
What you are arguing here is a kettle black scenario.
Since one does MHFM post videos or rants that could be confused with charity or politeness ?
Persons who claim that brother Dimond is uncharitable would also have to claim that many of the Catholic Saints and Doctors of the Church were also uncharitable. If you look at the writings from these Saints and Doctors on heretics, then it is virtually the same as what the Most Holy Family Monastery says. Stop bashing MHFM and begin realizing that they are the lone voice out there standing up for the true Holy Catholic faith as it was originally taught.
Feel free to give me a break dude. What is this, puppy love ?
So you want to respond to my comments, but you don't want me to respond to yours? tsk tsk :confused1:
-
Deliveringit tells it like it is.
Say it preachah :applause:
-
Deliveringit tells it like it is.
Say it preachah :applause:
Thanks for the applause, but the real applause should go to brother Dimond since he did a very good job bringing the truth into that debate against that protestant calvinist. Here again is the link to that debate,,
http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1/videos
-
:sleep:
-
:sleep:
WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!! :whistleblower:
-
I know the Dimond brothers are not popular here
On the contrary, they're a growing trend. Most folks here are big fans, and shape a lot of their thoughts based on their "sermons," even though they're not monks at all.
Whatever! :kick-can:
-
I know the Dimond brothers are not popular here
On the contrary, they're a growing trend. Most folks here are big fans, and shape a lot of their thoughts based on their "sermons," even though they're not monks at all.
Whatever! :kick-can:
There is a real love-hate relationship with the Dimond bros here on CathInfo. While I have not seen too many of their videos, the ones highlighting the Michael Voris deception and the video titled "Patrick Madrid's Jaw Dropping Heresy" is a good one to watch.
I am inching toward counting myself as one of their fans although they do sometimes exhibit an over zealousness in making their point and I do find their videos well paced and entertaining.
-
There is a real love-hate relationship with the Dimond bros here on CathInfo. While I have not seen too many of their videos, the ones highlighting the Michael Voris deception and the video titled "Patrick Madrid's Jaw Dropping Heresy" is a good one to watch.
I am inching toward counting myself as one of their fans although they do sometimes exhibit an over zealousness in making their point and I do find their videos well paced and entertaining.
The Dimond's are 100% correct on how the Catholic Church originally understood her own dogmas. They are also correct that the Vatican II heretical council from the 1960s and the last 6 anti-popes have attempted to change and/or re-interpret those dogmas.
I don't agree with all of the Dimond's conspiracy theories though. For example, I don't agree with their theory about an impostor sister Lucia. However, the Dimonds never said their conspiracy theories are binding on any Catholics to believe, but instead that its their own opinions and that others can disagree.
-
To be honest I'm starting to come around to their point of view, and I think the upcoming "canonisations" of JPII and John XXIII will only serve to further vindicate their position.
-
I think the main issue with the DB's is dogmatic sedevacantism.
I will say that whatever you think of them if they debated a protestant they probably cleaned up the floor with them. I listened to a similar debate a couple of years ago. They don't usually get into the SV issue when debating Prots.
-
I know the Dimond brothers are not popular here
On the contrary, they're a growing trend. Most folks here are big fans, and shape a lot of their thoughts based on their "sermons," even though they're not monks at all.
Whatever! :kick-can:
True, that.
Did you notice the new thread that started hyping the Dimonds got deleted?
It was getting into the upcoming so-called canonizations of JPII and JXXIII.
This new Bergoglio-Blasphemy is going to be a goldmine for the Dimonds.
But it's still possible that God will intervene.
God didn't stop Vat.II or the Newmass or Assisi I, II or III, but this might be just too much, IMHO. Even God has His limits, and He'll only take so much.
.
-
:sleep:
WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!! :whistleblower:
"Wake me up when it's over." (Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz movie)
.
-
The Dimond's are 100% correct on how the Catholic Church originally understood her own dogmas.
The Dimonds are 100% WRONG when they try to tackle BoD and BoB.
And the world is worse off for their existence, as a consequence.
With them everything is BLACK or WHITE and they can't imagine that the truth lies somewhere between artificial and contrived extremes.
.
-
But it's still possible that God will intervene.
God didn't stop Vat.II or the Newmass or Assisi I, II or III, but this might be just too much, IMHO. Even God has His limits, and He'll only take so much.
.
On the contrary, Neil, I think this Pope IS the intervention.
I think God gave us the pope we deserve, and that he is a punishment. Same for our political leaders. God is in complete control, here.
It can get worse. It will get worse. Our children are going to grow up in a cultural wasteland.
This is one of the ways God chastises people.
-
The Dimond's are 100% correct on how the Catholic Church originally understood her own dogmas.
The Dimonds are 100% WRONG when they try to tackle BoD and BoB.
And the world is worse off for their existence, as a consequence.
With them everything is BLACK or WHITE and they can't imagine that the truth lies somewhere between artificial and contrived extremes.
.
If the Dimonds are wrong, then why can't any of you post the "DECLARATION" and "DEFINITION" from the Church on 'Baptism of Desire' and 'Baptism of Blood'. It shouldn't be so difficult to do if what you say is correct, and yet I don't see any of you posting that evidence.
-
If the Dimonds are wrong, then why can't any of you post the "DECLARATION" and "DEFINITION" from the Church on 'Baptism of Desire' and 'Baptism of Blood'. It shouldn't be so difficult to do if what you say is correct, and yet I don't see any of you posting that evidence.
I am also curious as to why nobody is posting it. Seems like they would jump at the opportunity to post it so as to prove their case.
-
I am also curious as to why nobody is posting it. Seems like they would jump at the opportunity to post it so as to prove their case.
The reason nobody is able to post it is because the Church has never dogmatically Declared and Defined baptism of desire. Therefore Catholics are not bound to believe in it.
But water baptism has been dogmatically Declared and Defined by the Church, so therefore all Catholics must believe in the necessity of water baptism
-
What about catechumens? Do they experience baptism of desire?
-
What do you mean when you say , "Experience"...
Do you hold to a Cathecuмen has in anyway Salvation for a desire for the sacrament of Baptism ??
-
Peter Dimond bent that heretical punk into a human pretzel. :smile:
-
What do you mean when you say , "Experience"...
Do you hold to a Cathecuмen has in anyway Salvation for a desire for the sacrament of Baptism ??
I don't know. I need to look into that further.