Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers? (Read 6209 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2018, 10:49:01 PM »

I can't find fault in a Catholic who believes what is printed in My Catholic Faith or the Baltimore Catechism, regarding Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. I think there is abundant good faith among traditional Catholics; a desire to be faithful to Holy Mother Church.

This quickness to toss accusations of the sin of heresy, and mortal sins against the faith, and accusations of bad will are. . . terrifying to say the least.

I sense acts of inquisition without the authority to condemn, if that makes sense.

We live in strange times.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2018, 04:56:35 AM »

Quote from: sedevacantist3 on April 10, 2018, 08:04:02 PM

They used to attend byzantine masses suggesting to go late just for the eucharist but I would be surprised if they still do. I believe their position now is that there is hardly a priest in the U.S that you can receive the eucharist. I remember sending them an email a few years back about a priest i thought was good enough, they said it would be acceptable to receive the eucharist but told me (angrily)it was a mortal sin to give money , this I disagreed with and I don’t believe they have ever proven their position using Catholic teaching

I'd be interested in knowing where they attend mass, if they do. What you say here seems to suggest that they are home-aloners now?

2Vermont · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2018, 05:03:01 AM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 10, 2018, 04:44:37 PM

Sorry for the above incorrect statement. However, the fact that the Dimond Brothers (who possess a "holier than thou" attitude towards all non-Feeneyite Catholics) still attend Byzantine Catholic Masses for Sacraments makes them hypocrites, plain and simple.

They are receiving sacraments from Novus Ordo clergy in Novus Ordo churches, then have they audacity to continuously and publicly say that all non-Sedevacantists are damned to Hell. Thus, they are receiving sacraments from NO priests who are damned to hell. You would think that they would at least go to a Sedevacantist mass to receive Sacraments (since they make a living trash-talking the NO Church). Since they keep going to NO Churches to receive sacraments, why should anyone take those 2 seriously??

If this is where they attend mass, I can certainly understand your comments here.

However, perhaps there is no other option for them to receive valid sacraments....although I suspect that there has got to be at least one traditionalist chapel that is within reasonable distance.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2018, 08:07:14 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 10, 2018, 05:10:00 PM

Pope Pius IX spoke fallibly about invincible ignorance, which is different altogether to modern BOD.

Since you believe that Pope Pius IX was not speaking of BOD, then I will go back even further in Church history and cite a Canon from The Council of Trent affirming BOD (and as we all know canon law must be obeyed).

Session 7, Canon 4 of Canons on the Sacraments in General (Denzinger 847) clearly states the following:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the DESIRE of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Trent uses in its canon the word "DESIRE" so, frankly, how ignorant or insincere do you have to be to NOT SEE that BOD was taught at The Council of Trent and that to deny BOD makes one "anathema"? You can quote as many church fathers as you want to in order to justify your denial of BOD but I have just proven that BOD is canonical law.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2018, 09:14:04 AM »

Quote from: graceseeker on April 10, 2018, 01:10:27 PM

things are just getting clearer and clearer!

Thanks so much

still don't know what a feenyite is but that's OK

don't know if the NO Mass is valid but that's OK

guess I don't need to know... and neither does anyone else who might come here

I'll be more than happy to explain these things to you. First, a Feeneyite is someone who followed the errors of Father Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit Priest [1897-1978] who claimed that "without water baptism, there is absolutely no salvation."
Also, the NO Mass is valid if you believe that Pope Paul VI was a true pope. That's because as Pope, he (along with many other Popes before him) continuously violated #5 of Quo Primum (and that's okay because it is not dogmatic).

What does #5 of Quo Primum say? Here it is:

"by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."

Pope Paul VI arguably violated #5 of Quo Primum more than any other Pope since 1570 when he created the NO Mass. However, the NO Mass (even though it's barely Catholic and the Latin Mass is a billion times better because of this) is still valid and licit because it:

a.) has a valid consecration of the host (transubstantiation takes place because the words in Luke 22:19 are said to make it valid); and

b.) to deny the validity and licitness of the NO Mass would be violating an important canon law (which all Catholics must obey) and that law is the following:

Canon 7 of Chapter 9 in Session 22 of The Council of Trent –"If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." (Denzinger 954)

I hope that this helped you.

forlorn · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2018, 01:54:09 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 11, 2018, 08:07:14 AM

Since you believe that Pope Pius IX was not speaking of BOD, then I will go back even further in Church history and cite a Canon from The Council of Trent affirming BOD (and as we all know canon law must be obeyed).

Session 7, Canon 4 of Canons on the Sacraments in General (Denzinger 847) clearly states the following:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the DESIRE of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Trent uses in its canon the word "DESIRE" so, frankly, how ignorant or insincere do you have to be to NOT SEE that BOD was taught at The Council of Trent and that to deny BOD makes one "anathema"? You can quote as many church fathers as you want to in order to justify your denial of BOD but I have just proven that BOD is canonical law.

No that is a nonsense interpretation that no Pope has EVER taught. By your twisted logic that desire can replace sacrament because of that one quote you misinterpret, I could "desire" Holy Orders and then be a valid Priest, because according to you desire for a sacrament can replace it. So clearly, to any discerning Catholic, that quote is NOT saying that all sacraments can be fulfilled by a desire for them, but just that SOME of them can be. Which is true. It applies to the sacrament of Penance for example, as it states in another Canon of Trent.

But just as the desire of Holy Orders cannot replace the actual sacrament, the desire of Baptism cannot replace it either. As Trent teaches:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

This canon addresses your view directly. It clearly states that true and natural water is required. Where is the water involved in Baptism of Desire? As the Canon clearly states, anyone who twists that into allowing metaphorical baptism as BODers do, is anathema.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2018, 03:45:27 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 11, 2018, 01:54:09 PM

No that is a nonsense interpretation that no Pope has EVER taught.

You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.

Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):

“Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.

Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!

How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2018, 04:03:18 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 11, 2018, 03:45:27 PM

You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.

Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):

“Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.

Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!

How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.

Hank,

And the Magisterium - sorry, ah, hierarchy - has gone along with this in its universal catechisms, and even Pius X in his, and all the theologians, the manualists, etc. to a man have agreed with BoD and all read Trent exactly as you do.

And yet the hierarchy - sorry, Magisterium - was "indefectible" until Vatican II, and "unable to be mistaken" . . . except as to the absolute necessity of the receipt of the sacrament of water baptism for salvation. That minor point.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2018, 04:12:00 PM »

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on April 11, 2018, 04:03:18 PM

Hank,

And the Magisterium - sorry, ah, hierarchy - has gone along with this in its universal catechisms, and even Pius X in his, and all the theologians, the manualists, etc. to a man have agreed with BoD and all read Trent exactly as you do.

Thank you for bringing both common sense and honesty to this discussion, Jeremiah.

graceseeker · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2018, 01:07:11 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 10, 2018, 10:49:01 PM

I can't find fault in a Catholic who believes what is printed in My Catholic Faith or the Baltimore Catechism, regarding Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. I think there is abundant good faith among traditional Catholics; a desire to be faithful to Holy Mother Church.

This quickness to toss accusations of the sin of heresy, and mortal sins against the faith, and accusations of bad will are. . . terrifying to say the least.

I sense acts of inquisition without the authority to condemn, if that makes sense.

We live in strange times.

4 sure

forlorn · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2018, 01:59:58 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 11, 2018, 03:45:27 PM

You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.

Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):

“Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.

Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!

How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.

The only one insisting on double meanings, metaphors and multiple interpretations if you. Once again:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

2Vermont · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2018, 03:48:34 PM »

So I take it that no one really knows which liturgy the DB's attend?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2018, 03:52:15 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 01:59:58 PM

The only one insisting on double meanings, metaphors and multiple interpretations if you. Once again:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Thank you, Thank You, Thank You for this canonical citation!!! I am personally giving you a thumbs up myself on your post!

So you quote Session 7 Canon 2 on Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism [Denzinger 858] and, therefore, you associate Baptism of Desire as a"some sort of metaphor" or distortion of Catholic doctrine.

So, using this logic, Trent flip-flops on this issue. First, it advocates Baptism of Desire in Dz. 796 and then again in Dz. 847 and then suddenly Trent pulls a 180 with Dz. 858 (your above quote). Then, almost 400 years later, the Church goes back to reaffirming Baptism of Desire in Canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

So either Trent and the early 20th Century Church flip-flopped or Baptism of Desire is part of Church Doctrine.

forlorn · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2018, 04:03:55 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 12, 2018, 03:52:15 PM

Thank you, Thank You, Thank You for this canonical citation!!! I am personally giving you a thumbs up myself on your post!

So you quote Session 7 Canon 2 on Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism [Denzinger 858] and, therefore, you associate Baptism of Desire as a"some sort of metaphor" or distortion of Catholic doctrine.

So, using this logic, Trent flip-flops on this issue. First, it advocates Baptism of Desire in Dz. 796 and then again in Dz. 847 and then suddenly Trent pulls a 180 with Dz. 858 (your above quote). Then, almost 400 years later, the Church goes back to reaffirming Baptism of Desire in Canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

So either Trent and the early 20th Century Church flip-flopped or Baptism of Desire is part of Church Doctrine.

Nowhere does it advocate Baptism of Desire. As I already explained, your position is untenable as your quote mentioned ALL SACRAMENTS, and as we know, desire is NOT a substitute for all sacraments even according to BODers. Holy Orders and Matrimony, for example.
You are the one insisting that Trent flip-flopped, as it clearly says that Baptism is not a metaphor. BOD is literally all about a metaphorical baptism being substitute for a real one.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2018, 05:27:05 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 04:03:55 PM

Nowhere does it advocate Baptism of Desire.

Even if someone were to agree with you on Trent not teaching Baptism of Desire (which I do not), then can you please explain the Church canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the Code of Canon Law?

Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers? (Read 6209 times)

trad123

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

2Vermont

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

2Vermont

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Jeremiah2v8

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

graceseeker

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

2Vermont

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?