Author Topic: Dimond brothers (Read 9930 times)

OHCA · « **Reply #30 on:** January 28, 2016, 05:00:28 PM »

Quote from: ranlare

Quote from: Last Tradhican
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered

?

Yet another clue that you are a fraud.

OHCA · « **Reply #31 on:** January 28, 2016, 05:05:18 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

If the Dimonds are schismatic, then that also holds for Father Pfeiffer.

Fr. Pfeiffer is schismatic for 2 reasons.

1) Asking Catholics to shun other valid traditional Catholic priests and their sacraments.

2) Permitting a schismatic fraud to feign the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and continuing to boldly defend said schismatic fraud rather than being repentant for his folly.

ranlare · « **Reply #32 on:** January 28, 2016, 05:13:05 PM »

Quote from: ranlare

Quote from: Last Tradhican
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered

?

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Here ‘s the secret:
Though the sedevacantes won’t admit it, the Dimond’s website is the best source for information on why anyone is sedevacantes, and the sedevacantes use that information.

That part of Leo XIII's vision is often quoted by sedes. You're not though??

ranlare · « **Reply #33 on:** January 28, 2016, 05:43:50 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: ranlare
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Desmond
What I know is they are the single most hated "traditionalist" group on the face of the Earth.

Yep. Hands down.

Manifest heretics can't be Traditionalist Catholic.

But that's exactly what they believe.
So are you in agreement with them, at least as far as the ability of a private individual to determine if one is a heretic, and subsequent necessity of avoidance ?

With the Theological virtue of Faith and a firm understanding of it, a Catholic can and should determine what or who is heretical.

Interesting that Michael D. once kicked a "monk" out of his pretend monastery for presenting him with the Church's infallible teaching on latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunications.

Desmond · « **Reply #34 on:** January 28, 2016, 05:59:29 PM »

Quote from: ranlare

Interesting that Michael D. once kicked a "monk" out of his pretend monastery for presenting him with the Church's infallible teaching on latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunications.

And what do you think the this infallible teaching is?

ranlare · « **Reply #35 on:** January 28, 2016, 06:44:32 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: ranlare

Interesting that Michael D. once kicked a "monk" out of his pretend monastery for presenting him with the Church's infallible teaching on latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunications.

And what do you think the this infallible teaching is?

Why italicize the word "you"? Educated Catholics without hesitation know:

Pope Pius VI, Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, 1794, Condemned propositions: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,—false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.” (D. 1547)

Prayerful · « **Reply #36 on:** January 29, 2016, 11:23:05 AM »

It is said they go to Mass at a Greek rite parish which acknowledges Pope Francis. If that's true, that detracts a lot from their credibility. Now, perhaps there is no possible sede priest nearby, but I doubt that.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** January 29, 2016, 01:15:25 PM »

Quote from: ranlare

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Desmond
What I know is they are the single most hated "traditionalist" group on the face of the Earth.

Yep. Hands down.

Manifest heretics can't be Traditionalist Catholic.

Funny, the Dimonds would say the same thing about you. Nobody has yet established heresy. You just fling the word around.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2016, 06:56:25 AM »

On the bad - they, like every other traditional group can't promise infallibility to their viewpoint(s) of the Crisis. In particular, to Eschatology and their interpretation of passages in the Apocalypse (or Revelation). They might be right that the end of the world is right around the corner, but what if they're not? I also wish their website didn't have such a heavy emphasis towards fear mongering (aka Alex Jones alternative media).

On the good - their apologetics against Protestant theology drew my attention to looking further into the context of Luther's (Zwingli) etc. rebellion and disobedience when they radically broke away from the Church and interpreted Scripture on their own authority -- in essence teaching that the first 1500 years of Christians got it wrong (or partially right).

I did find their video "The Most Specific Heresy in VII" thought provoking in their comparison and contrast of Florence vs. Vatican II (reprobat/ reprobati) in regards to Church teaching in relation to the Jєωιѕн Faith.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #39 on:** January 31, 2016, 03:09:17 AM »

Quote from: ranlare

Quote from: ranlare
Quote from: Last Tradhican
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered

?

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Here ‘s the secret:
Though the sedevacantes won’t admit it, the Dimond’s website is the best source for information on why anyone is sedevacantes, and the sedevacantes use that information.

That part of Leo XIII's vision is often quoted by sedes. You're not though??

What is the opposite of what I wrote: "the hierarchy of the Church is in the same order today as it was under Pius X. Everything is as it has always been. Pope Francis has everything under control and is properly teaching the faith to the world".

Anyone that does not see that the pope is struck and the sheep are scattered is blind or deluding themselves. The Novus Ordo where every priest is his own church, the same for the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI and every independent priest, ARE all a testament that the sheep are scattered. Where does one go to find guidance? ANSWER: The pope.

Who in their right mind would go to Francis for their soul saving final answers?

If you want to know who I am and what I believe, just consider me Ladislaus, for I only joined Cathinfo so I could go into his Profile and his writings without all the "static" in the forum enviroment. He even has the same amount of children as me.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2016, 09:55:58 AM »

I really like it when the Dimond brothers bend Protestants and Novus Ordo Newchurchers into human pretzels in their material that they produce and during debates. :farmer:

Arvinger · « **Reply #41 on:** January 31, 2016, 10:12:36 AM »

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

On the bad - they, like every other traditional group can't promise infallibility to their viewpoint(s) of the Crisis. In particular, to Eschatology and their interpretation of passages in the Apocalypse (or Revelation). They might be right that the end of the world is right around the corner, but what if they're not? I also wish their website didn't have such a heavy emphasis towards fear mongering (aka Alex Jones alternative media).

Indeed, their interpretations of Revelation might seem to be probable taken at face value, but I think what detracts a lot from their credibility is Dimond's position of Fatima - according to them Pope Pius XII's 1952 Consecration of Russia was valid, we already had period of piece which Our Lady promised (even though 1952 the world is constantly at war) and conversion of Russia was "conversion to peace", not to the Catholic faith (which runs against clear words of Our Lady and history of Marian apparitions), which is grasping at straws in attempt to squeeze Fatima into their end-times interpretation of Revelation and Malachy's prophecy.

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

On the good - their apologetics against Protestant theology drew my attention to looking further into the context of Luther's (Zwingli) etc. rebellion and disobedience when they radically broke away from the Church and interpreted Scripture on their own authority -- in essence teaching that the first 1500 years of Christians got it wrong (or partially right).

Yes, their apologetic materials againt Protestantism are great - docuмentaries about Our Lady's sinlesness, Protestant doctrine of justificaton and Papacy in the Bible are brilliant.

Desmond · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2016, 10:40:59 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Indeed, their interpretations of Revelation might seem to be probable taken at face value, but I think what detracts a lot from their credibility is Dimond's position of Fatima - according to them Pope Pius XII's 1952 Consecration of Russia was valid, we already had period of piece which Our Lady promised (even though 1952 the world is constantly at war) and conversion of Russia was "conversion to peace", not to the Catholic faith (which runs against clear words of Our Lady and history of Marian apparitions), which is grasping at straws in attempt to squeeze Fatima into their end-times interpretation of Revelation and Malachy's prophecy.

Their interpretations of Revelations might be bonkers, but the likelyhood of Fatima's prediction about Russia referring to something else, grows slimmer by the day.

As the world grows more and more faithless, and the NewChurch with it, a miraculous conversion of Russia to Catholicism appears more and more absurd.

Conversion to what exactly? The Novus Ordo religion? So in actuality an apostasy.

Did Mary promise apostasy (utter abandonment of Christ)as a reward for the Nope fulfilling his duty to conform to her request? Makes no sense.

By the way they are right in saying the consecration, post failure to do so in due time, would not have required the comparticipation of all bishops etc.

That was only for a hypothetical valid one which would have also avoided WW2 and Russia's errors spreading, war, famine, etc.

Also, taking "a period of peace" to mean absolutely global absence of any conflict whatsoever is unfounded, and impossible given Man's Free Will.

Thirdly, they do not merely consider "conversion of Russia" as "conversion to peace", but the gradual abandonment of Communism, and in particular Stalinism and annexed persecutions of the faithful.

Honestly it seems manifest to me Fatima's potential as a Panacea for all the world's (and Counter-Church's) ills is wishful thinking more than anything harbored in reality.

And one of the chief reasons R&R hate SV so much, as it endangers their neat plan for Restoration.

Objectively speaking, given all the confusion and naught regarding Fatima and the Secrets, including but not limited to the Fake Sr. Lucia and subsequent interviews, books, etc, and even a Fake Third Secret manufactured by the Vatican, how could one even expect to dogmatically rely on it?

Desmond · « **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2016, 11:15:10 AM »

Here's what I'm referring to, and even brought to the late Fr.Gruner's attention on social media (who obviously shut me down):

Text of the second secret:

Quote

You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.

Ok.

Quote

If what I say to you is done[/b], many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end:

This refers to WW1 and the initial requests, not the Consecration.

Quote

but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI.

WW2

Quote

When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

The Aurora Borealis, WW2, and the punishment.

Quote

To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays.

Means, to prevent the punishment outlined above.

Quote

If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace;

If RUssia were to be consecrated IN TIME before the punishment begun!

Quote

if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.
The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated.

This is what actually happened. The request was initially ignored, WW2 broke out, Communism was exported outside Russia, with annexed persecutions.

Quote

In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me,

Our Lady KNEW her requests would not be heeded, and divine punishment would actually fall upon the world.
She says.. eventually a Consecration will take place by means of the Pope doing it.

Quote

and she shall be converted,

Russia went through various "conversions" since 1952: from Stalinism to a more moderate godless dictatorship, to eventually the abandonment of Communistic principles, embrace of market economy, and Eastern schismatic's religion. It is no longer "spreading errors" in the world, in fact it seems to be the least godless&evil western country at the moment.

Quote

and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

Mainland US and Europe did not witness any major conflict since WW2.
The Cold War did not ignite a mass conflict.
The only wars the US (and some european countries) waged since then are relatively minuscule and proxy-insignificant conflicts.
In other terms, there was no WW3.

The bishops:
The requirement of the bishops compartecipating in the Consecration had always been, since at least 1930, in relation to the initial FAILED opportunity at avoiding the very punishment.

The S.Secret, and all other text, never mention it as either a requirement or prediction about the "eventual" consecration.

It would be pointless anyway, as it was meant as an order/sacrifice to avoid God's Wrath, which already happened by this point.

Obviously today our Nope and unBishops not only do not care a bit about it, but wouldn't even qualify if they wanted to.

Arvinger · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2016, 04:44:13 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Conversion to what exactly? The Novus Ordo religion? So in actuality an apostasy.

Did Mary promise apostasy (utter abandonment of Christ)as a reward for the Nope fulfilling his duty to conform to her request? Makes no sense.

You forget about the chastisement predicted in supressed part of the Third Secret and by Our Lady in Akita, as well as numerous other prophecies of chastisement, perhaps Three Days of Darkness - after which there will be a restoration and then Russia can certainly be converted.

Quote from: Desmond

By the way they are right in saying the consecration, post failure to do so in due time, would not have required the comparticipation of all bishops etc.

That was only for a hypothetical valid one which would have also avoided WW2 and Russia's errors spreading, war, famine, etc.

How does that follow from any part of Fatima apparitions or later words of Our Lord and Our Lady to Sr Lucia? We know that the consecration will eventually happen, but it will be late (Our Lord clearly say "they will do it", which implies a valid consecration with every bishop).

Quote from: Desmond

Also, taking "a period of peace" to mean absolutely global absence of any conflict whatsoever is unfounded, and impossible given Man's Free Will.

What we have been dealing with since 1952 (allegedly final Consecration, according to the Dimonds) are not merely some local conflicts, but major conflicts including greatest world powers (Vietnam, Iraq, two invasions of Afghanistan - by Soviets and Americans), accompanied by incredibly bloody local conflicts (Yugoslavian wars, Nagorno-Karabakh war, numerous wars in Africa - including Rwanda genocide). This was not a period of peace in any way, shape or form. Also, despite human free will God can intervene to bring about His promises.

Quote from: Desmond

Thirdly, they do not merely consider "conversion of Russia" as "conversion to peace", but the gradual abandonment of Communism, and in particular Stalinism and annexed persecutions of the faithful.

This is exactly what I called grasping at straws in trying to reconcile Fatima with sedevacantism and Dimonds' interpretation of Revelation and Malachy's Prophecy. When Our Lady spoke about conversion in previous Marian apparitions, it was conversion to the Catholic faith (like in the case of Mexican Indians) - nothing indicates She meant something else here.

Also, to suggest that fall of communism is conversion seems extremely unlikely - the fall of communism was certainly (at least to certain degree) a plot of high ranked communists who wanted to change the economical system to lay their hands down on huge money while this change was happening. Also, in current Russia rates of abortion (highest in the world), alcoholism, spread of pornography and other abominations, together with involvment in military conflicts make any claims about Russia's supposed "conversion" absolutely ludicurous.

Quote from: Desmond

Honestly it seems manifest to me Fatima's potential as a Panacea for all the world's (and Counter-Church's) ills is wishful thinking more than anything harbored in reality.

Sorry, but I take that as lack of faith in divine promises. Also, no one says that Novus Ordo will necessarily return to Catholicism immediately after Consecration of Russia - given the situation and other private revelations it is more probable that the Consecration will be done after the chastisement which will sweep away the Novus Ordo (I hope I'm wrong on that, though).

Quote from: Desmond

Objectively speaking, given all the confusion and naught regarding Fatima and the Secrets, including but not limited to the Fake Sr. Lucia and subsequent interviews, books, etc, and even a Fake Third Secret manufactured by the Vatican, how could one even expect to dogmatically rely on it?

First of all, there was no "fake Third Secret manufactured by Vatican". Everyone agrees that the vision of bishop in white is authentic. What Vatican did was not manufacturing, but hiding part of the Third Secret.

Also, I don't think there is as much confusion as you claim - it is a well-established fact that there is another text which was covered-up and and we have enough evidence to get a pretty good idea what it contains (warning about apostasy in the Church and some sort of material chastisement).