Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: theresao1965 on January 28, 2016, 08:06:01 AM
-
I am a bit new to this site, so pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere. Over the years I have heard many things about the Dimond brothers. I really have no clear grasp on who they are, what their theological position is, etc. It has been a Smörgasbord of info, good, bad, indifferent...Anyone with any specific information or over all basic information on them, would be helpful.
-
I am a bit new to this site, so pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere. Over the years I have heard many things about the Dimond brothers. I really have no clear grasp on who they are, what their theological position is, etc. It has been a Smörgasbord of info, good, bad, indifferent...Anyone with any specific information or over all basic information on them, would be helpful.
They are a couple of guys who (sacrilegiously) call themselves Benedictine monks, who have always lacked both Church approval to function and any theological training.
They are inundated with heresy, very possibly are infiltrators...those "in the know" have confirmed they are really into "the benjamins".
AVOID!
-
Thank you for your reply. They, also, send me their 'stuff' through the US Mail, which land up ALWAYS in the garbage, unopened. Not sure how they got my info! :furtive:
-
This (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24193&min=645&num=1) is from 2005 but I don't think anything has changed with them since then.
-
I am a bit new to this site, so pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere. Over the years I have heard many things about the Dimond brothers. I really have no clear grasp on who they are, what their theological position is, etc. It has been a Smörgasbord of info, good, bad, indifferent...Anyone with any specific information or over all basic information on them, would be helpful.
They are a couple of guys who (sacrilegiously) call themselves Benedictine monks, who have always lacked both Church approval to function and any theological training.
They are inundated with heresy, very possibly are infiltrators, and are really into "the benjamins".
AVOID!
Could you please just give an objective overview?
Dimond brothers have adopted a very radical dogmatic sedevacantism to the point that they effectively consider as non-Catholic anyone who recognizes the legitimacy of the V2 Popes. IMO this has caused them to succuмb at times to bitter zeal.
They also have a very strong emphasis on the dogma EENS (no salvation outside the Church). They consider Baptism of Desire to be heresy, even when held to in a way that doesn't directly undermine EENS or the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (as St. Thomas did for example).
As for their status as religious, no, they were not officially and canonically established as such, but, then again, given the crisis in the Church, NONE of the Traditional religious orders have any such canonical establishment either. So this bitter ad hominem against them for not having Church approval is nonsense. Neither does SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, etc. CMRI and SSPV have established religious communities without any formal canonical approval. Dimonds were mentored by an older Benedictine for some time and that's where they derive their "commission" as it were to be Benedictines, but that's not at all unlike MOST of the Traditional religious orders.
They do a lot of good work with videos/books on miracles, creation vs. evolution, Padre Pio, heaven/hell, and Catholic Anti-Protestant apologetics. They also sell their materials for very cheap and are not about making money; I can't see how they don't lose money given the prices they have. Plus they have pretty much everything available online for free.
Lest someone try to characterize them as pure evil.
-
Hello Theresa, it's me Myrna. The Dimond brothers main agenda is to trap anyone who does not agree with them. They record telephone conversations, make videos of their "enemies" and edit them to their liking. Everyone is a heretic or schismatic that speaks out against them. They preach absolutely no Baptism of Desire nor of Blood.
Much of their information from their literature is spot on and that is the way they get you into their camp. Although they speak very poorly of everyone, as I said who is not connected to them, they go to some of the very priests they speak ill of to receive the Sacraments, I am told, not sure about that but have read it here on this forum, if you can believe everything you read here. :jester:
-
I am a bit new to this site, so pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere. Over the years I have heard many things about the Dimond brothers. I really have no clear grasp on who they are, what their theological position is, etc. It has been a Smörgasbord of info, good, bad, indifferent...Anyone with any specific information or over all basic information on them, would be helpful.
They are a couple of guys who (sacrilegiously) call themselves Benedictine monks, who have always lacked both Church approval to function and any theological training.
They are inundated with heresy, very possibly are infiltrators, and are really into "the benjamins".
AVOID!
Could you please just give an objective overview?
Dimond brothers have adopted a very radical dogmatic sedevacantism to the point that they effectively consider as non-Catholic anyone who recognizes the legitimacy of the V2 Popes. IMO this has caused them to succuмb at times to bitter zeal.
They also have a very strong emphasis on the dogma EENS (no salvation outside the Church). They consider Baptism of Desire to be heresy, even when held to in a way that doesn't directly undermine EENS or the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (as St. Thomas did for example).
As for their status as religious, no, they were not officially and canonically established as such, but, then again, given the crisis in the Church, NONE of the Traditional religious orders have any such canonical establishment either. So this bitter ad hominem against them for not having Church approval is nonsense. Neither does SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, etc. CMRI and SSPV have established religious communities without any formal canonical approval. Dimonds were mentored by an older Benedictine for some time and that's where they derive their "commission" as it were to be Benedictines, but that's not at all unlike MOST of the Traditional religious orders.
They do a lot of good work with videos/books on miracles, creation vs. evolution, Padre Pio, heaven/hell, and Catholic Anti-Protestant apologetics. They also sell their materials for very cheap and are not about making money; I can't see how they don't lose money given the prices they have. Plus they have pretty much everything available online for free.
Lest someone try to characterize them as pure evil.
Ladislaus:
The dvd producer John Maffei, although he deeply regrets it now, used to do their stuff.
He posts his email address on his website, which is john.maffei1@verizon.net
John reported that when Michael Dimond's "mentor" died, the next day, Michael drained the mentor's bank account of more than $800,000.
"The Bros" then abruptly left the "monastery" in Berlin, NJ, leaving a huge evidenced scandal behind, that landed Michael in court, as many long-time traditionalists familiar with these facts can verify.
It's really too bad they conned you.
-
What I know is they are the single most hated "traditionalist" group on the face of the Earth.
Both for their own errors and for their truths (unpalatable to most).
-
It's really too bad they conned you.
Nobody's "conned" me. Unlike yourself, I was trying to give an objective picture.
-
What I know is they are the single most hated "traditionalist" group on the face of the Earth.
Yep. Hands down.
-
They are inundated with heresy
Could you post just a few examples, out of this figurative inundation?
Surely, it will be a easy task.
-
What I know is they are the single most hated "traditionalist" group on the face of the Earth.
Both for their own errors and for their truths (unpalatable to most).
If their truths are truths, then they belong to everyone and can be found elsewhere. They do not corner that market and there is no need for most of us to expose ourselves to their errors.
-
It's really too bad they conned you.
Nobody's "conned" me. Unlike yourself, I was trying to give an objective picture.
You're obviously pretty young and not qualified to.
You, like many of your generation, greedily took their bait.
Pope Pius X (ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS): ".. for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things,"1 "vain talkers and seducers,"2 "erring and driving into error."3 It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ."
-
Young and unqualified? I don't know if that's how I'd characterize Ladislaus even if I frequently disagree with him. "Young" is subjective anyway. The same person can be young to a 60 yr old but old to a 20 yr old.
-
They are inundated with heresy
Could you post just a few examples, out of this figurative inundation?
Surely, it will be a easy task.
Schism.
They excommunicate anyone they disagree with. They set themselves up to be a de-facto Pope of the whole Catholic world.
What part of that is Catholic?
By the way, Desmond, we don't need to have more than one grave error to conclude AVOID THIS GROUP.
Their bitter zeal and schism permeates most of their writings. They are very dangerous. They cause Catholics to become dogmatic Home Aloners, staying at home every Sunday even when they have a perfectly good Tridentine Mass a short distance away!
In this way they PROMOTE THE DESTRUCTION OF CATHOLIC SOULS.
I think that's enough error for me to say AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
Whatever "truths" they have can be found hundreds -- even thousands -- of other places. If the whole MHFM site went down, the world would lose NOTHING.
Just like Vatican II.
-
It's really too bad they conned you.
Nobody's "conned" me. Unlike yourself, I was trying to give an objective picture.
You're obviously pretty young and not qualified to.
LOL. I'm 47 years old, spent several years in a couple of Traditional seminaries, completed my Ph.D. coursework (though not the thesis) in Patristic Greek and Latin. Fail.
You, like many of your generation, greedily took their bait.
:facepalm: "[my] generation"
-
They are inundated with heresy
Could you post just a few examples, out of this figurative inundation?
Surely, it will be a easy task.
Schism.
They excommunicate anyone they disagree with.
This I agree with. Perhaps not full schism but theirs is certainly a schismatic attitude because they have a strong tendency to denounce people as non-Catholic and outside the Church based on their own reasoning.
I have not detected any "heresy" ... even if some of their opinions are strongly held.
-
I just wanted to say that I am grateful for the Dimond Brothers because they introduced me to traditional Catholicism. It was reading their website that started me on my road to conversion.
-
I just wanted to say that I am grateful for the Dimond Brothers because they introduced me to traditional Catholicism. It was reading their website that started me on my road to conversion.
In a similar vein, many Traditional Catholics owe some gratitude to the bits of goodness and truth found in many other imperfect, sometimes very dangerous places:
* the Indult
* conservative Novus Ordo priests and groups
* etc.
But when we were in those places, we were supposed to keep moving along, until we arrived at the FULL truth.
Unfortunately, some people never (or extremely slowly, so it seems like they're not moving) escape those places which indeed contain some goodness/truth. The equivalent of living off garbage found in the dumpster.
You can't tell a man living off garbage to stop eating garbage and DIE, especially after you've done all you can to point out the better food to him.
(the poor man just doesn't get it for some reason.)
-
If their truths are truths, then they belong to everyone and can be found elsewhere. They do not corner that market and there is no need for most of us to expose ourselves to their errors.
True, this is common sense. Unfortunately is there even one single group active today one could swear it does not hold/promote one single error?
In fact, how could you even be sure you're not, at this very moment?
-
If their truths are truths, then they belong to everyone and can be found elsewhere. They do not corner that market and there is no need for most of us to expose ourselves to their errors.
True, this is common sense. Unfortunately is there even one single group active today one could swear it does not hold/promote one single error?
In fact, how could you even be sure you're not, at this very moment?
Don't be ridiculous. Quit trying to peddle agnosticism (the idea that we can't know truth)
The whole point of the Traditional movement is to leave a dangerous situation (Conciliar Church) where we aren't being fed, and to find pastors who will feed the sheep (rather than try to slaughter them). So we go out into the wilderness, looking for places we can nourish and keep our Catholic Faith.
Just about every other Trad group is superior, i.e. a safer lifeboat for one's Faith than the bitter, schismatic Dimond brothers.
We Catholics can and should judge trees by their fruits. When I see Catholics staying home from the Mass and Sacraments because they are being picky about some small thing that doesn't matter, suffering very real damage which really DOES matter, I know that the advice they received is erroneous and evil.
-
If the Dimonds are schismatic, then that also holds for Father Pfeiffer.
-
Don't be ridiculous. Quit trying to peddle agnosticism (the idea that we can't know truth)
I'm being objective. If in our day and age(Church and Pope absent, formally or factually, indifferently) Truth was so easy to obtain, your own very forum wouldn't be utterly divided on itself.
You got SVs, SPs, BODers, Feeneyists, BODomaniacs of various degrees, all sorts of things.
The whole point of the Traditional movement is to leave a dangerous situation (Conciliar Church) where we aren't being fed, and to find pastors who will feed the sheep (rather than try to slaughter them). So we go out into the wilderness, looking for places we can nourish and keep our Catholic Faith.
Yes, of course. It is a necessary first step and an anchor of relative certitude in dire times.
But what if by adhering to one specific "traditionalist" group you were to embrace error? Be it Dimondism, Feeneyism, Dogmatic SVism, BODoramism, passiveinfallibilitism, OCACism, I have no idea how many possible ones.
It can happen. Even the hardcore SV/Cekadian position of "everything before V2=100% orthodox" may very well be erroneous.
Just about every other Trad group is superior, i.e. a safer lifeboat for one's Faith than the bitter, schismatic Dimond brothers.
Surely just about every other group is more tolerant. But a safer lifeboat?
Objectively speaking, in the context of the Great Apostasy, I or anyone else can't be absolutely sure.
We Catholics can and should judge trees by their fruits. When I see Catholics staying home from the Mass and Sacraments because they are being picky about some small thing that doesn't matter, suffering very real damage which really DOES matter, I know that the advice they received is erroneous and evil.
Right. Of course you can only say this based on your own personal understanding and personal theology. It is almost entirely subjective too.
-
The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
-
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.
-
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.
They are Protestantized Catholics. There is a difference as they now believe that they are infallible and no longer need a pope.
-
It's really too bad they conned you.
Nobody's "conned" me. Unlike yourself, I was trying to give an objective picture.
You're obviously pretty young and not qualified to.
LOL. I'm 47 years old, spent several years in a couple of Traditional seminaries, completed my Ph.D. coursework (though not the thesis) in Patristic Greek and Latin. Fail.
You, like many of your generation, greedily took their bait.
:facepalm: "[my] generation"
What terrible and costly discernment. Fail.
The fruits of your labor? Now you give countenance to demons who oppose the Council of Trent and the 1917 Code's sacred teachings on Baptism. Ultimate Fail.
-
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 ?
-
The Dimonds are “the most hated trads” because they are dogmatic sedevacantes and they do not believe that non-Catholics can be saved. That combination pretty much renders them to find adherents among less than 1/100 of 1 % of Catholics, if that many. There are very few sedevacantes priests in the world, and practically all of them believe that non-Catholics can be saved. That leaves the Dimond’s as the odd men out. Yet, their website is said to have more viewers than the Vatican website. Someone is reading what they write.
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.
and
All those who do not believe that non-Catholics can be saved, the so-called Feeneyites, also go to the Dimond’s website for the most up to date and complete source for information on EENS.
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered, till there is a shepherd to lead us, we are on our own. You will not find any Catholic group that is a perfect substitute for the shepherd, so, till God deigns to send us a shepherd, a pope, to straighten things out, all “groups” will have defects. Don’t follow anyone blindly.
-
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered
?
-
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered
?
Yet another clue that you are a fraud.
-
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.
-
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered
?
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 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.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The shepherd is struck (the pope) and the sheep are scattered
?
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.
-
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:
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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:
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.
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.
but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI.
WW2
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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).
-
Arvinger, I will open a thread about your response, here in the general section, as it seems to me we're risking derailing the topic.
-
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.
I do thank the Dimonds for citing “Our Lady of Fatima” by William Thomas Walsh (1891-1949). Bought the book to give me a ‘jolt’ from Traditional malaise.
“That Lady said that many souls go to hell…" “and people go there who commit sins and don’t confess them, and they stay forever and burn.” …”Jacinta, what are you thinking of? Asked Lucia one day. “Of that war that is going to come, and of so many people who are going to die and go to Hell.” … pg. 88,89
And as a counter (for me at least) to the pop culture I live in; in particular to fighting the Naturalism surrounding my state in life.
“How must we sacrifice?” asked Lucia. “With all your power offer a sacrifice as an act of reparation for the sinners by whom He is offended, and of supplication for the conversion of sinners…Above all accept and endure with submission the suffering which the Lord will send you.” pg. 39
Grant it, this is nothing striking in the spiritual realm; but knowing myself, I easily complain of the little trials God sends me and too attached to creature comforts...and the below is a reminder to me to re-interpret a 'cross' - away from a naturalistic viewpoint, to instead a supernatural view (hopefully I'm in the state of grace); to that so called "supernatural gold."
“Sacrifice yourselves for sinners,” she repeated, “and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: “O’ Jesus, it is for your love, for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” pg. 80
I fear too, that being a Traditionalist, I can be too smug (proud); especially when comparing myself to non-Traditionalist; but back then - this was before Vatican II and all the Masses and Catholics were in essence, "traditional," ...just blown away of a 'girl' who would be in Purgatory till the end of the world...wonder what sins she committed?
“Heaven! Lucia suddenly remembered two girls who had died recently. They were friends of her family, and used to go to her house to learn weaving from her sister Maria. ‘Is Maria da Neves now in Heaven? She asked. “Yes, she is.” And Amelia? “She will be in purgatory until the end of the world.” Purgatory! The end of the world!....pg. 51.
-
I read the Dimond's website on a regular basis, and when I saw the video about Fatima, I saw many interesting and different observations in it, however, it is full of holes. The one that stuck out was their "period of piece" when there was no period of peace.
My conclusion was that they believe this is the great chastisement and the end of times, that we are living in. From there they interpret Fatima. That is the bottom line.
It is tough to argue that this is not the great chastisement, I mean, how can the hierarchy apostatize more than today at some time after Fatima's real period of peace and conversion of Russia and the World?
The Dimond's might just be on the right conclusion, however, how they get there. the details, are not correct.
It all hinges on whether this is the the great chastisement or not. No?
-
I have listened to and researched 90 percent of the Dimond's material and I can't find any heresy or error. Sure, they have a lot of opinions on prophecy, that are neither here nor there. Their opinions on prophecy are very interesting, but not infallible. I have read from those who try to "debunk" the Dimonds and their material is nonsense. I challenge someone to post something credible that refutes them point by point. These two totally shred all of their opponents. I am not a "devotee of the Dimonds", but i am a student of the Church for over 30 years. Theses two aren't going to win any popularity contests by their "bedside manor", but hey, the truth hurts sometimes. On the subject of the faith they don't invent anything. They just bring up dogma and doctrine that has already been settled or proclaimed.
-
I read the Dimond's website on a regular basis, and when I saw the video about Fatima, I saw many interesting and different observations in it, however, it is full of holes. The one that stuck out was their "period of piece" when there was no period of peace.
My conclusion was that they believe this is the great chastisement and the end of times, that we are living in. From there they interpret Fatima. That is the bottom line.
It is tough to argue that this is not the great chastisement, I mean, how can the hierarchy apostatize more than today at some time after Fatima's real period of peace and conversion of Russia and the World? The Dimond's might just be on the right conclusion, however, how they get there. the details, are not correct.
It all hinges on whether this is the the great chastisement or not. No?
Many of the Church Fathers say that the chastisement precedes the period of peace, then after the peace is over, the time of the anti-christ comes. The chastisement is NOT during the anti-christ's time, this is for sure. Our Lady of Fatima does not talk about the anti-christ, but she does talk about a chastisement in the form of revolutions, martydoms and social upheavals (culminating in the 3 days of darkness, which is prophesized elsewhere). The 3 days of darkness is NOT connected to the time of the anti-christ in any prophecy that i've ever read, so this is another sign that the time of the chastisement precedes the anti-christ.
.
Some confusion arises when we hear of the "end times" and many people correlate this phrase to the time of the anti-christ only. But many of the Church Fathers talk of these 3 time periods - the chastisement, the peace and the anti-christ - as the 'end times", because all together, they are connected.
.
One thing that the Church Fathers are unanimous on, is that the Great Apostasy is not happening now because before the anti-christ comes, there are 6-7 different things that must happen to the world before his arrival. One being that the whole world will be Catholic, which has not happened yet in all of history. The USA has never been a catholic country. Same with China, Japan, Thailand, etc. The period of peace will be the time when the whole world will follow Christ and his Church like never before. This is why when the anti-christ comes and seduces the world, it is called the "Great Apostasy" because all those who follow him into error actively reject catholicism.
.
The Chastisement that we have seen since V2 and which may or may not culminate in persecutions, and possibly an outlawing of the mass for a time, is not the same as will happen under the anti-christ. In our period, the trials we may face will be a precursor to those of the anti-christ, but not be as long or as encompassing. In our period, Our Lady will triumph over satan's forces (i.e. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ), while in the future, Christ will triumph over the anti-christ and satan himself. In our period, Our Lady will save those countries and people who are catholic and then convert the world as a result of Her triumph. In the future, Christ will save all countries and peoples and the world will end. In our period, the mass may be outlawed in certain countries but not all (since it's not said everywhere). In the future, the anti-christ will outlaw the mass for the entire world.
.
The best explanation for all of this is that the Chastisement is the end of the 5th age of the Church, with the 6th age being the period of peace and the Age of Mary, and this peace followed by the rise of the anti-christ in the 7th and final age of the Church. This is Ven Holzhauzer's explanation and it agrees very well with many prophecies and with the volumes written by the Church Fathers.
-
Many of the Church Fathers say that the chastisement precedes the period of peace, then after the peace is over, the time of the anti-christ comes. The chastisement is NOT during the anti-christ's time, this is for sure. Our Lady of Fatima does not talk about the anti-christ, but she does talk about a chastisement in the form of revolutions, martydoms and social upheavals (culminating in the 3 days of darkness, which is prophesized elsewhere). The 3 days of darkness is NOT connected to the time of the anti-christ in any prophecy that i've ever read, so this is another sign that the time of the chastisement precedes the anti-christ.
.
Some confusion arises when we hear of the "end times" and many people correlate this phrase to the time of the anti-christ only. But many of the Church Fathers talk of these 3 time periods - the chastisement, the peace and the anti-christ - as the 'end times", because all together, they are connected.
.
One thing that the Church Fathers are unanimous on, is that the Great Apostasy is not happening now because before the anti-christ comes, there are 6-7 different things that must happen to the world before his arrival. One being that the whole world will be Catholic, which has not happened yet in all of history. The USA has never been a catholic country. Same with China, Japan, Thailand, etc. The period of peace will be the time when the whole world will follow Christ and his Church like never before. This is why when the anti-christ comes and seduces the world, it is called the "Great Apostasy" because all those who follow him into error actively reject catholicism.
.
The Chastisement that we have seen since V2 and which may or may not culminate in persecutions, and possibly an outlawing of the mass for a time, is not the same as will happen under the anti-christ. In our period, the trials we may face will be a precursor to those of the anti-christ, but not be as long or as encompassing. In our period, Our Lady will triumph over satan's forces (i.e. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ), while in the future, Christ will triumph over the anti-christ and satan himself. In our period, Our Lady will save those countries and people who are catholic and then convert the world as a result of Her triumph. In the future, Christ will save all countries and peoples and the world will end. In our period, the mass may be outlawed in certain countries but not all (since it's not said everywhere). In the future, the anti-christ will outlaw the mass for the entire world.
.
The best explanation for all of this is that the Chastisement is the end of the 5th age of the Church, with the 6th age being the period of peace and the Age of Mary, and this peace followed by the rise of the anti-christ in the 7th and final age of the Church. This is Ven Holzhauzer's explanation and it agrees very well with many prophecies and with the volumes written by the Church Fathers.
If the whole world witnessed the Chastisement and converted to Catholicism, why would they ever apostasise? It's an issue that confuses me. Also, which Church Fathers spoke of the Great Chastisement and the Period of Peace? I was under the impression that we get most of what we know about those from the prophecies of Saints and Marian Apparitions. That's all I can find when I google, anyway.
-
I have listened to and researched 90 percent of the Dimond's material and I can't find any heresy or error. Sure, they have a lot of opinions on prophecy, that are neither here nor there. Their opinions on prophecy are very interesting, but not infallible. I have read from those who try to "debunk" the Dimonds and their material is nonsense. I challenge someone to post something credible that refutes them point by point. These two totally shred all of their opponents. I am not a "devotee of the Dimonds", but i am a student of the Church for over 30 years. Theses two aren't going to win any popularity contests by their "bedside manor", but hey, the truth hurts sometimes. On the subject of the faith they don't invent anything. They just bring up dogma and doctrine that has already been settled or proclaimed.
Well, the biggest issue I have with them is their elevation of the theological note regarding Baptism of Desire to heretical. I too happen to agree with them in rejecting the speculative notion of BoD. But one cannot ascribe the theological note of heresy to it ... since the Church has always allowed theologians to hold the opinion. Now, certainly, 95% of all BoD "flavors" are in fact implicitly heretical ... rooted as they are in Pelagianism. But the classic BoD of St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus (all three of them declared Doctors despite holding to this "heresy"?) cannot be rejected as heretical.
This dogmatization of their rejection of BoD in turn leads to bitter zeal and a schismatic mentality. When you exclude from the Church those whom the Church does not exclude, that is one of the primary definitions of schism.
This has happened because the Dimonds are not particularly savy when it comes to applying "distinctions". Yes, it is dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. But these Doctors assert that the Sacrament operates in BoD as the instrumental cause of justification via the desire for it ... even as can happen with the Sacrament of Confession, that the Sacrament is in fact received in voto. I disagree for a vast array of reason that I won't digress into now ... but I cannot reject this distinction as heretical because the Church has not done so. They continue to uphold the necessity of Baptism in asserting that it remains necessary ... even if it can be received in voto, but is not absolutely necessary in re. At no point has the Church dogmatically rejected this distinction and explicilty taught that the Sacrment is necessary in re for salvation, and that the same logic as applies to Confession cannot be applied to Baptism.
-
If the whole world witnessed the Chastisement and converted to Catholicism, why would they ever apostasise? It's an issue that confuses me.
Most of the world will die during the chastisement and those left will be catholics and those non-catholics who will mostly convert (the exception being some jews, since the jews will not convert en masse until after the death of the anti-christ). Then the whole world will be catholic there will be peace. However...just like we witnessed in our times the fall of catholics from the 40s/50s to the post-V2 time of the 70s, this shows us that it can only take 1 generation (or 30-40 years) for people to forget their faith. The answer, simply, is that the generation born post-Chastisement will 1) not know enough about the evils of the pre-chastisement world and/or 2) will not appreciate the Faith/peace that they enjoy and thus 3) their Faith will not be as strong and they will be also be spiritually weakened by the "good life" of peace and worldly prosperity. They will fall victim to the anti-christ's errors because human nature doesn't change and the triumph of Our Lady will not mean as much to them as it will to us.
.
Another aspect to all of this is that the transition period between the "period of peace" and the anti-christ will probably be 15-20 years or so. The end of the period of peace is the death of the Great Monarch. When he dies, then the Holy Roman Empire is divided up into 10 kingdoms and this is where Scripture says that the 10 kingdoms fight against each other and the anti-christ gains world fame by winning battles at a young age. But he does not gain full world power until the age of 30, which mocks Christ's age at His time of public life. So if the anti-christ is a military prodigy at, let's say, the age of 10-15, and he doesn't gain world power until 30, that means that we have 15-20 years of a transition period.
.
If the period of peace is short (as many prophecies say), let's assume that's 20-25 years. Add 15-20 more years of transition between the peace and the full reign of the anti-christ and you have 35-45 years. At the time of the reign of the anti-christ and the start of the 3.5 year persecution, anyone younger than 35-45 years old would have absolutely no memory of the passion of the Church or the start of the Great Monarch's reign or the Chastisement or life before that. Anyone younger than 45-55 would've been 10 years old when the Great Monarch died and also have a vague and childish memory of the Church in Her glory. So it's easy to see how this generation could be led astray by many of the same errors which existed in our times/pre-chastisement, because these people didn't see such errors affect their daily lives like we do today. They grew up in peace; they grew up with the Faith and didn't have to work for it.
.
Just like we see the young generations of Tradition today, anyone younger than 40 does not remember V2. They hardly remember the papacy of JPII (and if they do remember him, they don't remember his shockingly scandalous early days when he was hereticlly promoting the one-world religion and other crap). They don't remember +ABL or when the sspx started in the 80s. They don't know about the time period pre-indult, when modernist rome didn't allow any latin masses from 1970-1986. They don't understand why older Trads are anti-indult, why older trads have a problem with the new ordinations, why older Trads have a problem with the FSSP. Only those younger trads who study history, pray and listen to their elders have kept the Faith and stayed on the course of Tradition.
.
Under 40 trads today don't see a problem with the indult, they don't see a problem with a "conservatively said" novus ordo mass, they don't see a problem with +Benedict's error of interpreting V2 "in light of tradition". They are too young to remember the post-V2 war for the Faith. They are too young to appreciate sacrifices made to keep Tradition alive. They are too young to appreciate what they have been given. ...So it will be at the time of the rise of the anti-christ. Our times are a parallel, a precursor, an echo of the times to come.
.
Also, which Church Fathers spoke of the Great Chastisement and the Period of Peace? I was under the impression that we get most of what we know about those from the prophecies of Saints and Marian Apparitions. That's all I can find when I google, anyway.
I don't know specifically but a book I read which summarized their writings, says that most of the Church Fathers talk about a period of peace before the reign of the anti-christ and this period will be when the Holy Roman Empire will return for the 3rd time in History (which ties into the Great Monarch prophecies).
-
Let's look at the ways that our times are a precursor to the time of the anti-christ.
1. Peaceful times are disrupted by War which leads to harships and a loss of morality.
Our Times - WW1 and WW2 followed prosperous times, which led to the moral degeneracy of the 1960s.
Anti-Christ - The peace of the Great Monarch ends when he dies and his kingdom will be fought over by 10 kings. Assuming this peace will lead to moral decay, as history proves.
2. A loss of morality leads to a loss of Faith, which leads to trials of the Church.
Our Times - The moral degeneracy of the 60s, led to an acceptance of V2, and caused a crisis in the Church and an apostasy of many catholics, who accepted a new religion.
Anti-christ - The moral degeneracy after peaceful times leads to a loss of Faith and the Great Apostasy of the entirely 100% Catholic world (save for some jews), as foretold by Scripture.
3. A False Church arises, a false period of peace begins, a persecution of the Church begins.
Our Times - V2 is a precursor, a "false prophet" of the true goal - a one-world religion. I believe this is yet to come, even in our times, but I don't know how far God will allow it. There may be a short "false peace" in the Middle East in Jerusalem. There could be a masonic one-world religion setup in Jersulalem with a UN global govt setup too. Many prophecies foretell of a terrible, but short persecution of Christians all over the world, before the Great Monarch comes. The good news is that our times are conditional - such evils can be lessened by prayer and sacrifices.
Anti-christ - Scripture tells us to beware of False Prophets and False christs. This is mainly a warning for the end times, before the anti-christ. These false prophets will seduce the whole world to believing in error, to prepare them for the anti-christ reign, who will bring about an end to the wars after the Great Monarch and will usher in a "peace". When the anti-christ is accepted by world leaders, then his reign begins, and the Church is persecuted on a global scale, as foretold by Scripture.
4. During the Persecution, Saints will arise to guide the flock and to counteract the evils of the day, to give hope to the elect.
Our Times - During the V2 trials, we have been given many saintly clerics to guide us through these evils. The Church of our day is "in eclipse" as Our Lady of LaSalette foretold, but She survives in small chapels around the world, where the mass is still said and the Faith preserved.
Anti-christ - During the persecutions, God will send the 2 Witnesses (Enoch and Elijah) to preach and world miracles, to give hope to the elect and to convert sinners.
5. The Church Triumphs over Evil, the Persecution ends, and God is glorified again.
Our Times - Our Lady will be victorious over the devil's masonic henchmen. She will destroy all heresies of our day and resurrect the Church. When russia is consecrated, everyone will know that peace occurs because of Her power. Her Immaculate Heart will triumph and She will be praised for her motherly intercession in saving the world. Through Our Lady, The Angelic Pope and the Great Monarch will rule over the world Catholicism will flourish.
Anti-christ - Christ himself will be victorious over satan and his anti-christ puppet. Christ will destroy the anti-christ publically and the Church will return from near death. Christ and his Church will rule over all nations, having conquered the last and final heresy.
6. The period of peace will bring many converts and all the earth will glorify God.
Our Times - the "age of Mary" will bring about the end of protestantism, muslimism and all other isms. All men will convert to Catholicism, even many jews. Yet, the jews, as a whole will still exist and be tolerated.
Anti-christ - the "kingship of Christ" after the death of the anti-christ will finally bring about the coversion of ALL jews to the Faith. This is the culmination of God's promise in the Old Testament to not foresake his chosen people and to bring them back to Himself. After a period of peace, when the entire world and ALL men are catholic, and when all peoples of the world worship Christ as King, then the world will end.
-
Very informative posts, thank you. I'll be sure to read up more on it later.
-
Let's look at the ways that our times are a precursor to the time of the anti-christ.
1. Peaceful times are disrupted by War which leads to harships and a loss of morality.
Our Times - WW1 and WW2 followed prosperous times, which led to the moral degeneracy of the 1960s.
Anti-Christ - The peace of the Great Monarch ends when he dies and his kingdom will be fought over by 10 kings. Assuming this peace will lead to moral decay, as history proves.
2. A loss of morality leads to a loss of Faith, which leads to trials of the Church.
Our Times - The moral degeneracy of the 60s, led to an acceptance of V2, and caused a crisis in the Church and an apostasy of many catholics, who accepted a new religion.
Anti-christ - The moral degeneracy after peaceful times leads to a loss of Faith and the Great Apostasy of the entirely 100% Catholic world (save for some jews), as foretold by Scripture.
3. A False Church arises, a false period of peace begins, a persecution of the Church begins.
Our Times - V2 is a precursor, a "false prophet" of the true goal - a one-world religion. I believe this is yet to come, even in our times, but I don't know how far God will allow it. There may be a short "false peace" in the Middle East in Jerusalem. There could be a masonic one-world religion setup in Jersulalem with a UN global govt setup too. Many prophecies foretell of a terrible, but short persecution of Christians all over the world, before the Great Monarch comes. The good news is that our times are conditional - such evils can be lessened by prayer and sacrifices.
Anti-christ - Scripture tells us to beware of False Prophets and False christs. This is mainly a warning for the end times, before the anti-christ. These false prophets will seduce the whole world to believing in error, to prepare them for the anti-christ reign, who will bring about an end to the wars after the Great Monarch and will usher in a "peace". When the anti-christ is accepted by world leaders, then his reign begins, and the Church is persecuted on a global scale, as foretold by Scripture.
4. During the Persecution, Saints will arise to guide the flock and to counteract the evils of the day, to give hope to the elect.
Our Times - During the V2 trials, we have been given many saintly clerics to guide us through these evils. The Church of our day is "in eclipse" as Our Lady of LaSalette foretold, but She survives in small chapels around the world, where the mass is still said and the Faith preserved.
Anti-christ - During the persecutions, God will send the 2 Witnesses (Enoch and Elijah) to preach and world miracles, to give hope to the elect and to convert sinners.
5. The Church Triumphs over Evil, the Persecution ends, and God is glorified again.
Our Times - Our Lady will be victorious over the devil's masonic henchmen. She will destroy all heresies of our day and resurrect the Church. When russia is consecrated, everyone will know that peace occurs because of Her power. Her Immaculate Heart will triumph and She will be praised for her motherly intercession in saving the world. Through Our Lady, The Angelic Pope and the Great Monarch will rule over the world Catholicism will flourish.
Anti-christ - Christ himself will be victorious over satan and his anti-christ puppet. Christ will destroy the anti-christ publically and the Church will return from near death. Christ and his Church will rule over all nations, having conquered the last and final heresy.
6. The period of peace will bring many converts and all the earth will glorify God.
Our Times - the "age of Mary" will bring about the end of protestantism, muslimism and all other isms. All men will convert to Catholicism, even many jews. Yet, the jews, as a whole will still exist and be tolerated.
Anti-christ - the "kingship of Christ" after the death of the anti-christ will finally bring about the coversion of ALL jews to the Faith. This is the culmination of God's promise in the Old Testament to not foresake his chosen people and to bring them back to Himself. After a period of peace, when the entire world and ALL men are catholic, and when all peoples of the world worship Christ as King, then the world will end.
Pax, you really should write a book!
What are some books you would recommend?
-
Some quotes from the Church Fathers (and other saints) which support the coming Great Monarch and the return of the Holy Roman Empire. Then the fall of the Roman Empire, and the rise of the anti-christ. [my comments in blue]
St Methodius (4th cent) speaking of the a coming Great and Holy King
"A day will come when the enemies of Christ [freemasons] will boast of having conquered the whole world. They will say, "Christians cannot escape now!" But a great King will arise to fight the enemies of God. He will defeat them, and peace will be given to the world, and the Church will be freed from Her anxieties."
---
St Remigius (5th cent), Bishop of France who baptized King Clovis and 3,000 followers into the Faith in 496 AD.
"Take notice that the Kingdom of France is predestined by God for the defense of the Roman Church which is the only true Church of Christ. This kingdom shall someday be great among the kingdoms of the earth, and shall embrace all the limits of the Roman Empire, and shall submit all other kingdoms to its own scepter."
[France has never held this much territory under its power. It has never embraced all the limits of the Roman Empire. If this prophecy is true, it is yet to come.]
---
St Caesar of Arles, France (6th cent), Father of the Church, according to Jurgen's "Faith of the Early Fathers". Presided over the 2nd Council of Orange in 529 AD against Pelagianism.
"When the entire world, and in a special way France - especially the provinces of the north, the east, and above all that of Lorraine and Champagne - shall have been laid waste by the greatest miseries and trials, then the provinces shall be comforted by a prince who had been exiled in his youth, and who shall recover the crown of the lilies. This prince shall extend his dominion over the total universe.
At the same time, by the will of God, a most holy man shall receive the Papacy, who will be most perfect in every spiritual perfection. This Pope will have with him the great Monarch, the most virtuous man, who shall be an eminent leader of the holy line of French Kings. This great Monarch shall assist the Pope in the reformation of the whole earth. Many nations and their princes that are living in error and impiety shall be converted and an admirable peace shall reign among men during many years, because the wrath of God shall be appeased through their repentence, penance and good works. There will be one common law, only one faith, one baptism, one religion.
All nations shall recognize the Holy See of Rome, and shall pay homage to the Pope. But after an extended period of time, fervor will cool, inquity will abound and moral corruption shall become worse than ever before, which shall bring upon mankind the last and worst persecution of anti-christ and the end of the world."
---
St Epheaem (5th cent):
"Then the Lord from his glorious heaven shall set up His peace. And the kingdom of the Romans [Roman Empire] shall rise in place of this latter people, and establish its dominion upon the earth, even to its ends, and there shall be no one who will resist it.
After iniquity shall have multiplied, and all creatures have become defiled, then Divine Justice shall appear, and shall wholly destroy the people, and coming forth from perdition, the man of iniquity [anti-christ] shall be revealed upon the earth, the Seducer of men, and the distruber of the whole earth."
---
St Catald(us) (7th cent):
"The Great King will wage war till he is 40 years of age. He will assemble great armies and hurl back the tyrants out of his empire."
---
Rabanus Maurus (9th cent), the most thorough chronicler of both prophecy and Oral Tradition in Western Europe. He was abbot of the famous Benedictine Monastery in Fulda. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "His fame as a teacher spread all over Europe. He was the most learned man of his age. In scripture and patristic knowledge, he had no equal and was thoroughly conversant in canon law and liturgy."
"Our principle Doctors [teachers of the Faith] agree in telling us, that towards the end of time one of the descendents of the kings of France shall reign over all the Roman Empire; and that he shall be the greatest of the French Monarchs and the last of his race. After having governed well his kingdom, he shall go to Jerusalem and lay down his scepter and crown at Mt Olivet. This shall be the conclusion of the Roman and Christian Empire."
---
St Anslem (11th cent), Doctor of the Church
"Certian Doctors [esteemed teachers of the Faith] truly say, that one of the kings of the Frankish Empire shall possess it in its entirety, which King shall live in the last time and shall be the greatest and last of kings. Who after he shall have happily governed his Kingdom, shall come to Jerusalem and lay down his scepter and crown on Mt Olivet. He shall be the last and consummate Emperor of the Roman and Christian Empire.
And immediately thereupon [after he lays down his scepter/crown], according to the sentence of Paul, they [esteemed teachers of the Faith] say antichrist will come."
---
St Thomas a'Becket (12th cent)
"A knight shall come from the West. He shall capture Milan, Lombardy and the three Crowns [Italy]. He shall then sail to Cyprus and Famagoste and land at Jaffa [the oldest part of Tel Aviv, Israel], and reach Christ's grave, where he will fight. Wars and wonders shall befall until the people believe in Christ toward the end of the world."
---
St Hildegard (12th cent)
...There are so many prophecies from St Hildegard that you can look them up yourself.
William D'Otrante (13th cent), an abbot of a monastery in Southern Italy
"The Great Monarch and the great pope will preceed anti-christ. The nations will be at war for 4 years and a great part of the world will be destroyed. The pope will go over the sea carrying the sign of Redemption on his forehead. The Great Monarch will come to restore peace and the Pope will share the victory. Peace will reign on earth."
---
John of Vatiguerro (13th cent)
"Spoilation, pillaging and devastation of that most famous city which is the capital and mistress of France [Paris] will take place when the Church and the world are grievously troubled. The Pope will change his residence and the Church will not be defended for 25 months or more, because during all that time, there will be no Pope in Rome, no emperor and no ruler in France. But, after this, a young captive Prince shall recover the Crown of the Lilies and shall extend his dominion all over the world."
---
St Vicent Ferrer (14th cent), known as the "Angel of Judgement" spoken of in the Apocalypse.
"Armies from the East, West and North will fight together in Italy and the Eagle [Great Monarch] shall capture the false king, and all things shall be made obedient unto him, and there shall be a new reformation in the world."
---
Concerning the Fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the anti-christ...
---------------------------
St Cyril of Jerusalem (4th cent): Speaking of the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the anti-christ
"Since the true Christ is to come a second time, the adversary makes use of the expectation of the simple, and especially of those of the circuмcision [the joos]; and he brings in a certain man who is a magician, and who is quite expert in sorceries and enchantments of beguiling craftiness. This one shall seize the power of the Roman Empire, and shall falsely style himself Christ. By the name of Christ he shall deceive the joos, who are expecting the Annointed and he shall seduce the gentiles by his magical illusions.
This aforementioned anti-christ is to come when the times of the Roman Empire have been fulfilled and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts, perhaps, but all reigning at the same time. After these there shall be an eleventh, the anti-christ, who by the evil power of magic [false miracles] shall seize upon the Roman Power. Of the kings who reigned before him, 3 shall be humble and the remaining 7 he shall have as subjects under him [see book of Daniel]. He shall desplay against all men and especially against Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily. For three years and six months only shall he be the perpetrator of such things.
Now these things we teach not of our own ingenuity...that this kingdom is that of the Romans has been the tradition of the Church's interpreters..."
---
St John Chrysostom (4th cent):
"In the same way as those kingdoms which existed before the Roman Empire were destroyed (the Babylonian by the Persian, the Persian by the Greek, the Greek by the Roman), so will the Roman Empire be destroyed by anti-christ. This will happen when the Roman Empire shall have been divided into 10 kingdoms [after the Holy Monarch dies]."
---
St Jerome (4th cent)...in his commentary on the Book of Daniel:
"Therefore, let us state what all the Ecclesiastical writers [omnes scriptores ecclesiastici] have passed down [tradiderunt]: At the consummation of the world, when the Kingdom of the Romans has been destroyed, when ten kings shall have divided the territory of the Romans between themselves, an eleventh shall rise to a small kingdom, who when he shall have overcome three of the ten kings, i.e. the kingdom of the Egyptians, of the Africans and of the Ethiopians and consequently as we learn more manifestly - whom he shall have killed, the other seven kings shall submit their necks to the victor [the eleventh king].
Who is the eleventh king? St Jerome explains:
"Nor do we think him to be the Devil or a demon, as some others do, but one of mankind in whom satan shall dwell totally...his mouth uttering great boasts, for he is the man of sin, the son of perdition, such that he will seat himself in the Temple as if he were God. [Here Jerome is directly quoting from St Paul's description of the anti-christ in 2nd Thessalonians, 2:15]
---
There are many, many, many more where this came from.
-
What are some books you would recommend?
The 2 best books I've run across are below. There is a lot of overlapping quotes in these books, but both have information the other does not.
1. "Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement" by Yves Dupont. -TAN Books, 1970
This small book is only 125 pages is packed to the gills with prophecy quotes. The writer is a traditional catholic and offers some interesting commentary for his time. He lived in the 70s, so he could not project the full devastation that V2 caused.
2. "Trial, Tribulation and Triumph: Before, During and After Anti-christ" by Desmond A Birch. -Queenship Publishing, 1996
This book was written by a novus ordo catholic so he does not see the role that V2 has played in setting up the minor apostasy that we are living in, nor is he able to fully connect the dots between Our Lady's Triumph and the period of peace. Nevertheless, his commentary is very minor and most the book is full of quotes and research.
He really concentrates on the Church Fathers and the role of Tradition in explaining the end times, which is a good foundation to have, when reading simple prophecies from saints. If you have a prophecy from the Middle Ages which agrees with Tradition, or agrees with many of the Church Fathers, then such a "prophecy" is no longer of private interpretation, but is elevated to a near-truth. It can be viewed as God giving us a reminder that such events are still to come; that we must not forget. Certainly this is God's loving Divine Providence since most of us have never studied the Church Fathers. Deo Gratias!
-
How the above relates to what Socci found cannot be reconciled:
At around 4 p.m. on January 3, 1944, in the chapel of the convent, before the Tabernacle, Lucia asked Jesus to make known His will: “I then felt a friendly hand, maternal and affectionate, touch my shoulder.”
And the Mother of God said to her: “Be at peace, and write what I have commanded you, but not, however, that which has been given to you to understand its meaning,” intending to allude to the meaning of the vision which the Virgin herself had revealed.
Immediately afterward, said Sister Lucia, “I felt my spirit inundated by a mystery of light that is God and in Him I saw and heard: the point of a lance like a flame that is detached, touches the axis of the earth, and it trembles: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers, the clouds, exceed their boundaries, inundating and dragging with them, in a vortex, houses and people in a number that cannot be counted. It is the purification of the world from the sin in which it is immersed. Hatred, ambition, provoke the destructive war. After I felt my racing heart, in my spirit a soft voice said: ‘In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!’ This word ‘Heaven’ filled my heart with peace and happiness in such a way that, almost without being aware of it, I kept repeating to myself for a long time: Heaven, Heaven.”
Antonio Socci
From Il Libero, August 17, 2014
nor that revealed at Akita:
“As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead.
What man reveals is always questionable. What the Holy Virgin reveals cannot be questioned.
-
All of the quotes I provided reconcile with what Sr Lucy saw, because she was talking about a particular point in time (ie chastisement and three days of darkness and the comet and earthquakes) all of which will happen before and during the time of persecutions and cινιℓ ωαrs which will occur to cause Catholics to pray for God’s mercy, which he will answer by sending the Great Monarch and peace.
The above prophecies are general; they predict a large period of years, maybe a decade. Sr Lucy’s prophecy is about a much shorter time. It all fits together.
-
But the Great Monarch has in fact arrived.
https://tradcatknight.org/ (https://tradcatknight.org/)
-
I have listened to and researched 90 percent of the Dimond's material and I can't find any heresy or error. Sure, they have a lot of opinions on prophecy, that are neither here nor there. Their opinions on prophecy are very interesting, but not infallible. I have read from those who try to "debunk" the Dimonds and their material is nonsense. I challenge someone to post something credible that refutes them point by point. These two totally shred all of their opponents. I am not a "devotee of the Dimonds", but i am a student of the Church for over 30 years. Theses two aren't going to win any popularity contests by their "bedside manor", but hey, the truth hurts sometimes. On the subject of the faith they don't invent anything. They just bring up dogma and doctrine that has already been settled or proclaimed.
.
How exactly have you researched their positions? As a "student of the Church" one would suspect that you have access to approved, pre-conciliar works on various topics they address: baptism, heresy, etc. You've really not ever come across anything in any Catholic material in tension with the Dimond's material?
.
Rejecting the salvific quality of baptism of desire is their most glaring error. They err not just in their rejection but also as Ladislaus pointed out, in their conviction that baptism of desire is heretical. This means that the whole magisterium has maintained soteriological error for at least four centuries. For, since Trent at least, baptism of desire has been affirmed by everyone who has taught on the matter.
.
I was also surprised, several years ago, to discover that even their case for sedevacantism is a wreck. Their argument revolves around a lack of supernatural faith on the part of the conciliar claimants, and they argue that this lack constitutes their non-membership. This is the kind of nonsense one ends up committed to when one develops a disdain for the ordinary magisterium. It is abundantly clear within the Tridentine tradition, especially since Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi (but really since Bellarmine's de Controversiis) that supernatural faith is not a condition of Church membership.
.
Of course they present themselves as just "bringing up dogma and doctrine that has already been settled or proclaimed" but they do it in a very crude, used-car salesman way. The Catholic faith cannot and is not reducible to a checklist of discrete anathemas; the ordinary magisterium constitutes the bulk of what we know to belong to the Catholic faith: the sainthoods of Ss. Peter, Paul, and more than a thousand years worth of saints; the existence of guardian angels, the efficacy of sacramentals, the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, and so on. Not to mention that what is solemnly defined is, per Vatican I, to be understood according to the way the Church understands it-- not in a vacuum "as it reads" or whatever other propagandic axioms the Zirconium boys like to circulate. With the blinders off, it becomes quite evident that they present nothing other than their own spin on things and intellectually bully people into thinking that their understanding is the only true and obvious one. Of course if that were true, then their whole apostolate would make no sense at all; one hardly needs a teacher or interpreter for what is obvious!
-
.
How exactly have you researched their positions? As a "student of the Church" one would suspect that you have access to approved, pre-conciliar works on various topics they address: baptism, heresy, etc. You've really not ever come across anything in any Catholic material in tension with the Dimond's material?
.
Rejecting the salvific quality of baptism of desire is their most glaring error. They err not just in their rejection but also as Ladislaus pointed out, in their conviction that baptism of desire is heretical. This means that the whole magisterium has maintained soteriological error for at least four centuries. For, since Trent at least, baptism of desire has been affirmed by everyone who has taught on the matter.
.
I was also surprised, several years ago, to discover that even their case for sedevacantism is a wreck. Their argument revolves around a lack of supernatural faith on the part of the conciliar claimants, and they argue that this lack constitutes their non-membership. This is the kind of nonsense one ends up committed to when one develops a disdain for the ordinary magisterium. It is abundantly clear within the Tridentine tradition, especially since Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi (but really since Bellarmine's de Controversiis) that supernatural faith is not a condition of Church membership.
.
Of course they present themselves as just "bringing up dogma and doctrine that has already been settled or proclaimed" but they do it in a very crude, used-car salesman way. The Catholic faith cannot and is not reducible to a checklist of discrete anathemas; the ordinary magisterium constitutes the bulk of what we know to belong to the Catholic faith: the sainthoods of Ss. Peter, Paul, and more than a thousand years worth of saints; the existence of guardian angels, the efficacy of sacramentals, the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, and so on. Not to mention that what is solemnly defined is, per Vatican I, to be understood according to the way the Church understands it-- not in a vacuum "as it reads" or whatever other propagandic axioms the Zirconium boys like to circulate. With the blinders off, it becomes quite evident that they present nothing other than their own spin on things and intellectually bully people into thinking that their understanding is the only true and obvious one. Of course if that were true, then their whole apostolate would make no sense at all; one hardly needs a teacher or interpreter for what is obvious!
What form of Baptism of Desire do you mean by the way? The more traditional (a) wishing to be baptised counts as a baptism if you are unable to be baptised before death, or (b) the modernist "Jews can be secret Catholics and be saved"?
-
The sort of enlarged, elastic approach to EENS common in the Novus Ordo-- describing the Catholic Church as the "privileged path" like Robert Barron did to the Jew Ben Shapiro-- is certainly a complete failing and dereliction of duty. As to the exact limits of baptism of desire, my own personal opinion is that it is doubtful that anyone can be saved without explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation, although an implicit desire for baptism (accompanied by an explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation) would certainly suffice, per Saint Alphonsus. Perhaps it is the case that an implicit faith in the mysteries would suffice in some instances, though that is far from certain and Tradition seems to weigh rather heavily on explicit faith at least in those two mysteries being necessary for salvation.
.
The Dimonds' reject even this "narrower" view, though. Yet this is the teaching of the Council of Trent; it isn't merely the teaching of the ordinary magisterium for the last five hundred years (perhaps even longer-- which alone suffices to prove the apostolicity of the doctrine), but it's right there in Trent. Trent describes the catechumen as being capable of being justified before the sacrament is received.
.
-
The sort of enlarged, elastic approach to EENS common in the Novus Ordo-- describing the Catholic Church as the "privileged path" like Robert Barron did to the Jew Ben Shapiro-- is certainly a complete failing and dereliction of duty. As to the exact limits of baptism of desire, my own personal opinion is that it is doubtful that anyone can be saved without explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation, although an implicit desire for baptism (accompanied by an explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation) would certainly suffice, per Saint Alphonsus. Perhaps it is the case that an implicit faith in the mysteries would suffice in some instances, though that is far from certain and Tradition seems to weigh rather heavily on explicit faith at least in those two mysteries being necessary for salvation.
.
The Dimonds' reject even this "narrower" view, though. Yet this is the teaching of the Council of Trent; it isn't merely the teaching of the ordinary magisterium for the last five hundred years (perhaps even longer-- which alone suffices to prove the apostolicity of the doctrine), but it's right there in Trent. Trent describes the catechumen as being capable of being justified before the sacrament is received.
.
This is very good and I agree with all of it except the “privileged path” stuff is not a dereliction of duty, but is blatantly heretical.
-
This is very good and I agree with all of it except the “privileged path” stuff is not a dereliction of duty, but is blatantly heretical.
Its horribly worded (the privileged path bit) but I'm curious what dogma it explicitly denies. The closest would seem to be "Outside the Church there is no salvation" but that *could* be parsed with fine distinctions.
Not defending Barron, to be clear. I think he was way off.
-
The sort of enlarged, elastic approach to EENS common in the Novus Ordo-- describing the Catholic Church as the "privileged path" like Robert Barron did to the Jew Ben Shapiro-- is certainly a complete failing and dereliction of duty.
No, I'm afraid not. It's much more than that. It amounts to an objectively heretical denial of EENS.
-
Quod and Lad,
I'm quite open to it being heretical; not recalling exactly what was said (but just the tenor and gist of it) I didn't want to overstep my memory. As Byzcat said, heresy requires a direct doubt or denial of some de fide teaching and in this case I was not sure how direct it was. Which is a point simply to how one categorizes what Barron said.
-
Quod and Lad,
I'm quite open to it being heretical; not recalling exactly what was said (but just the tenor and gist of it) I didn't want to overstep my memory. As Byzcat said, heresy requires a direct doubt or denial of some de fide teaching and in this case I was not sure how direct it was. Which is a point simply to how one categorizes what Barron said.
That's why I said objectively heretical. If in point of fact the position articulated guts the dogma of any meaning, then it's heretical. It reduces EENS to a "meaningless formula" and effectively guts the dogma. If some atheistic Jew like Shapiro can be saved, then there's no one who can't be. So EENS becomes a mere tautology. You can't be saved unless you're in the Church, but if you're saved then it must mean you are in the Church. But anyone can be saved. Therefore anyone can be within the Church. It turns EENS into a pathetic joke.
-
As Byzcat said, heresy requires a direct doubt or denial of some de fide teaching
You are confusing a heretical statement with a heretical person. What you describe above is related to a person’s intent or personal understanding of truth. What Ladislaus describes is the fact of heresy itself, which exists regardless of the person’s intent. This is why we are OBLIGATED to have a well formed conscience. Without one, many people are heretics and don’t even know it. They are OBJECTIVELY in error even if they may not want to be. They still sin due to ignorance because God will enlighten us if we pray, therefore those in ignorance are so because of a punishment from God.
-
That's why I said objectively heretical. If in point of fact the position articulated guts the dogma of any meaning, then it's heretical. It reduces EENS to a "meaningless formula" and effectively guts the dogma. If some atheistic Jew like Shapiro can be saved, then there's no one who can't be. So EENS becomes a mere tautology. You can't be saved unless you're in the Church, but if you're saved then it must mean you are in the Church. But anyone can be saved. Therefore anyone can be within the Church. It turns EENS into a pathetic joke.
Given Barron has also said that there is hope that Hell is empty, I think it's safe to say it's more than "objectively" heretical.
-
This is very good and I agree with all of it except the “privileged path” stuff is not a dereliction of duty, but is blatantly heretical.
I don't believe this "bishop" ever had a legitimate duty to abandon in the first place.
-
That's why I said objectively heretical. If in point of fact the position articulated guts the dogma of any meaning, then it's heretical. It reduces EENS to a "meaningless formula" and effectively guts the dogma. If some atheistic Jew like Shapiro can be saved, then there's no one who can't be. So EENS becomes a mere tautology. You can't be saved unless you're in the Church, but if you're saved then it must mean you are in the Church. But anyone can be saved. Therefore anyone can be within the Church. It turns EENS into a pathetic joke.
To be clear, I don't believe any atheists can be saved.
The meaningless formula thing comes from an encyclical from Pope Pius XII. Which as far as I understand, wouldn't be infallible. So I'm not sure how that could be used to determine that particular views of EENS are heretical.
And to be clear, again, I'm not defending Barron, just trying to understand how exactly we're distinguishing heresy (outright condemned by the Church) with merely extremely implausible imprudence
-
You are confusing a heretical statement with a heretical person. What you describe above is related to a person’s intent or personal understanding of truth.
.
I pretty squarely had just the proposition in mind-- ergo my response focused on whether the proposition was directly in denial or doubt of a dogma. I said nothing about intention, and don't really care about the intention since the question I was responding to was about the proverbial limits of baptism of desire, and Barron's relevance to the question was quite ancillary.
.
That's why I said objectively heretical. If in point of fact the position articulated guts the dogma of any meaning, then it's heretical. It reduces EENS to a "meaningless formula" and effectively guts the dogma. If some atheistic Jew like Shapiro can be saved, then there's no one who can't be. So EENS becomes a mere tautology. You can't be saved unless you're in the Church, but if you're saved then it must mean you are in the Church. But anyone can be saved. Therefore anyone can be within the Church. It turns EENS into a pathetic joke.
.
Heresy is a direct doubt or denial of some de fide proposition. Something that is objectively heretical would, then, directly doubt or deny some de fide proposition. I am not defending Barron since as 2VT pointed out he is rather famously Balthasarian in his soteriology, which for my money is ultimately irreconcilable with the necessity of the Church for salvation. But heresy has a specific meaning and I think, especially given its relevance today, we should be ready to distinguish an heretical proposition from one that is a different category of error.
-
To be clear, I don't believe any atheists can be saved.
The meaningless formula thing comes from an encyclical from Pope Pius XII. Which as far as I understand, wouldn't be infallible. So I'm not sure how that could be used to determine that particular views of EENS are heretical.
And to be clear, again, I'm not defending Barron, just trying to understand how exactly we're distinguishing heresy (outright condemned by the Church) with merely extremely implausible imprudence
As much as modernists like to twist it to make it so, it is impossible to reconcile "outside of the Church there is no salvation" and "people outside of the Church can be saved". EENS could not possibly be worded more clearly.
-
To be clear, I don't believe any atheists can be saved.
The meaningless formula thing comes from an encyclical from Pope Pius XII. Which as far as I understand, wouldn't be infallible. So I'm not sure how that could be used to determine that particular views of EENS are heretical.
And to be clear, again, I'm not defending Barron, just trying to understand how exactly we're distinguishing heresy (outright condemned by the Church) with merely extremely implausible imprudence
.
Interestingly, Mgr. Fenton seems to have regarded Humani Generis' reference to tautological EENS to be the Holy Father taking a swipe at Saint Benedict's Center, or at least he leveraged the expression against them in his famous "The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation" article in 1951.