has now excommunicated Pius X, Leo XIII

I'm reminded of the saying, "A world where no man is a Pope is a world where every man is a Pope". This is like when Protestantism first began, when the Lutheran heretics used to play around with the canon of Scripture, rejecting more and more books with the foundation of it all being their own private judgment. So here, we have the rejection of more and more popes.

The manifest inconsistency of the Dimonds apart, Holymystery's position is ultimately founded upon the same feeble sands of private judgment. It's absurd to say or to imply there is practically no priest in the world that holds the true doctrine, it makes a mockery of the indefectibility of the Church (which is no less a dogma of the faith). I disagree with Nadie, but at least he does not advise others to not go to a priest who believes in baptism of desire.

I wonder what the "heresy" was for which Pope CM excommunicated Pope St.Pius X? Was it that Catechism of his that taught Baptism of desire? In that case, he might as well have gone back to Pius IX for Quanto Conficiamur Moerore? Or even to Trent, for their canons addressing the subject. Tell you what, he should have just become a Protestant and decided that the early Church had apostatized.

Well, I hoped that people would talk about and discuss the topic that I started and not other things. Here's some good quotes:

"All heretics, and all the other people who die outside the Church and Salvation, does not sincerely seek after the truth nor prays to God with sincerity to enlighten them about the truth. These people rather refuse to believe, or only believe in what they think is of the true Faith, rejecting everything else. This is the heresy or mortal sin all the Protestants or Eastern “Orthodox,” etc, fall under, who in truth (many of them) do not fully understand what the Church teaches (yet obstinately refuses to believe in it whenever it is presented to them) or would refuse to believe in it if it ever were presented to them.

This is the exact reason why many people are left in darkness and faithlessness, since God beforehand knew of their bad will and their refusal to accept the true Catholic Faith. This is a truth of Faith that is taught by many of the Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754: “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”

2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.

However, we should not think we are good in any way for having the Faith or think that we are special in anyway for being brought into the Faith. This is a trap which one easily could fall for. And it is a very dangerous trap, for if a person thinks himself to be special in anyway, then he is probably already lost. Pride (in my opinion) leads most souls to Hell. It is the beginning and end of damnation. (You may of course think or consider yourself to be specially evil or sinful, such as: “that you are the worst person on earth” or “the greatest sinner on earth” etc, which is good to think about oneself. This is the way one should consider oneself: as the greatest sinner in the world and totally unworthy to receive any grace from God.) In truth, personally, I do not understand why I have been brought to the Faith, and why so many pagans, Jews or Muslims, who are better than me, have not. What did I do to deserve this grace of Faith, and what did they fail to do? Why are they in darkness, while I have found the true light of the Gospel? Why, I often ask myself, without understanding why.

St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”"

Nishant wrote: I don't want to focus on the incident, but your reading of it is completely incorrect. The woman desired to be Catholic, she confessed her faith ("I believe in thee") in Christ's divinity and therefore in His Incarnation as the Son of God. Being a simple Christian,

You can't even quote her own priest son saying anything other than that she never desired to be a Catholic during her whole life. All you have is the word of a "visionary" who said that "God told her" that the woman said whatever. This is a new baptism of desire I never heard of:

When a non-Catholic dies having rejected the Church all their lives (her son was a priest, who was trying to convert her all her life, and admits that she never changed), they are given one last chance when Jesus Christ personally will appear to them and say here I am, God, this is your last chance to believe what the Catholic Church has been telling you for 80 years, 19 hours, 52 minute and 37 seconds, this is your last second to convert, and you'll be saved.


If that Jewsih Mother, described thoroughly in the article, was saved, then we can change the dogma to read : "Who knows who is saved till after God talks to them at the gates"

Dear Nishant,

Best of luck in your work converting non-Catholics with your novel new and improved BOD of the last second direct from God, you'll need it.

I've written enough. "Those that have eyes to see let them see".


Nishant's New and Improved Baptism of Desire

"When a non-Catholic dies having rejected the Church all their lives (her son was a priest, who was trying to convert her all her life, and admits that she never changed), they are given one last chance when Jesus Christ personally will appear to them and say here I am, God, this is your last chance to believe what the Catholic Church has been telling you for 80 years, 19 hours, 52 minute and 37 seconds, this is your last second to convert, and you'll be saved."

Strawman, much?

You yourself told me pious stories of those who were raised from the dead to be baptized. What should I conclude, that you were encouraging people to end their lives in infidelity, hope to be raised and given another chance to be baptized?

I really don't know why you keep misrepresenting what I say. Deathbed conversions, just like being raised to be baptized, by their nature are singular and exceptional, not to be expected in the everyday course of events, happen in one in a million cases.

It would be a sin of presumption to put off conversion or even true penance till the moment of death.

All this is also irrelevant, since if you don't believe in the story's authenticity, that's perfectly fine. I didn't base what I said above about this doctrine on any private revelation, but on sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition.

If you want to stop, we'll leave it at that, then. God bless.

Here's some more quotes from this site:

"PETER LIES ABOUT THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Around 16:12-16:41 in the debate; and on his website

III Council of Constantinople: “If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews or the meetinghouses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion [excommunicated]. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”

The following is Peter’s incredible commentary on the Third Council of Constantinople:

Peter Dimond, 16:12-16:41 in the debate: “That again is talking about churches which are notorious in law, those which have been declared by name, or those which are notorious in fact. Those which are so obvious like the Eastern “Orthodox”. That’s what it’s talking about [that those must be avoided]. It is not talking about undeclared individuals who profess to be catholic who happen to be heretics but are not so notorious. So it’s all beside the point.”

Now, can anyone please explain to us where the third Council of Constantinople mentioned that it was only referring to those groups of people that Peter just mentioned? Peter is simply lying through his teeth here since he know this dogma goes against him! If Peter did not argue as he does he would have to confess that this and similar decrees condemns him and his heretical position of going to “THE MEETINGHOUSES OF THE HERETICS!” (Third Council of Constantinople).

By the way, Peter has even admitted that his own notoriously heretical priest that he receives the sacraments from have rejected the evidence (MHFM’s material) when it was presented to him. Peter has even tried to convert his priest many times, but he has refused to listen. So what excuse is there for his priest? None. The priest is a notorious heretic even according to the Dimonds own standards. Yet Peter and Michael Dimond still presumably continues to go to this priest for mass and the sacraments.

According to Peter, it doesn’t matter how often or how many times his priest rejects the evidence or the dogmas of the Church or even how many times he excuses the heresies of the Vatican II “Church” and its antipopes. For so long as the priest stays less “notorious” or heretical, then, according to the Dimonds’ own made up and heretical standard, the priest can be approached and the Dimonds can avoid being condemned by their own standards or by the condemnation of the Third Council of Constantinople.

However, as anyone of good will can see for themselves, the Third Council of Constantinople never made any distinctions between declared or undeclared heretics, between less notorious or more notorious heretics, between more obvious or less obvious heretical persons, etc., as Peter actually have the boldness to claim, and so the only way to interpret this dogma is to interpret it for what it really says, and that would be to include all the known heretics, declared or undeclared, less notorious or more notorious, less obvious or more obvious about their heresies etc. For so long as we can know for a certain fact that a specific person is an obstinate heretic, then we must condemn him as such and avoid him and may not approach him for religious purposes just as the Third Council of Constantinople and similar decrees clearly state.

There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once declared:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

When Peter obstinately evade papal decrees, canons, councils and dogmas that are already so clear and easy to understand that no further explanation is needed or necessary to understand them, then he is acting dishonestly. Not all dogmas are as clear or easy to understand as others, of course, hence that some saints have misunderstood, for example, the Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, believing baptism of desire is true. And other dogmas might be easier to understand in view of other dogmas, etc. But whenever a dogma clearly forbids Catholics to have any religious communion with known heretics and schismatics, then no further explanation is necessary or anything more needed to be added to understand the meaning of the dogma, because it’s already abundantly clear from the words itself that all known, obstinate heretics must be avoided, as we have seen. (These dogmas of course only condemns association with heretics in direct opposition to the Church laws and not every kind of association like buying food from them etc.)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”"

Objection 1): The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ said (Matthew 16). He said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Matthew 28). What you are saying is contrary to the promises of Christ.

Answer: No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."2

Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”3

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “ By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”6

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes. Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines. This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.