Monday, May 15, 2017

Do-It-Yourself Theology


Fred and Bobby Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) are to theology what professional wrestling is to the Olympics. Although the former in each case is phony, they are each more amusing, if nothing else. Our baffled "Benedictine brothers" love to pontificate on every theological topic under the sun, while lacking in any theological training. Moreover, they condemn to Hell anyone who dares to disagree with their opinions (subject to continuous change), and based on their (current) private interpretations of ecclesiastical decrees. It was brought to my attention that our Feeneyite fiends have put out an article entitled "Historical Examples of Approved Theologians Teaching Error."  Ironically, the only errors are in the article, not the approved theologians!

The Dimonds write, "A false doctrine has become somewhat widespread in our day among those who deny the Church’s teaching on salvation and baptism.  The error involves elevating the fallible writings of certain ‘approved’ theologians to the status of the Magisterium.  This is a grave mistake which denies the true rule of faith (the magisterial proclamations) by substituting another in its place (the fallible teaching of theologians).  Having adopted a false rule of faith, these people fall into various errors and heresies, especially on the issue of salvation." Is this really the case? In this post I will put forth the facts surrounding the issue.

Flawed Dimonds

 Before you entrust the care of your immortal soul to Fred and Bobby Dimond, here are the facts about them I have published in the past. They:


  • Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. 
  • Have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damn to Hell anyone who disagrees
  • Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!
  • Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)
  • Have spread the Feenyite heresy denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as forcefully as possible and have made an excommunicated Jesuit, reconciled to the Modernist Vatican and holding to many strange ideas and practices (Fr. Leonard Feeney), an ersatz "hero"
  • Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings
  • Have claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation, who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)
  • Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids
Real Theologians

 The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."
 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

1. What do we mean by "approved" theologians? Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.

2. Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness,  that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes, theologians   are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. (a) In explaining and determining the meaning of dogmas, theologians are considered private teachers with regard to the methods they use (arguments, etc.),but not when they propose a doctrine as a doctrine of the faith or the Church, even though they express its meaning to other persons using other concepts and formulas. (b) The opposite opinion obviously sins against the teaching of the Church regarding the authority of theologians. (c) Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that the Fathers of the Church and her theologians erred in setting forth and explaining the meaning of the doctrine of the faith. This opinion involves the Jansenist error that the faith has been "obscured" in the Church.

 On the subjects of BOD and BOB, theologians may disagree as to what theological note is to be ascribed to them, yet they are unanimous in their teaching that BOD and BOB must be believed. A theological note is a category that tells us how close a teaching is to the truths revealed by God, and which He requires us to believe. For example, a doctrine may be "of the faith" (de fide), the denial of which would be heresy, or "certain," the denial of which would be a direct sin against the Faith, but not heretical. The specific category therefore, has a corresponding censure. However, any category would place the doctrine among teachings that Traditionalist Catholics must adhere to or sin against the Faith. Some theologians simply teach doctrines without assigning theological notes to them, however ALL theologians agree BOD and BOB are in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium, otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines and their works would be censured.

Fr. Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc, are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. Thousands of people have (to their detriment) "diagnosed themselves" on  Web MD, thinking they can understand their symptoms and arrive at a correct determination without medical education and training. 

3. The unanimous teaching of the theologians represent the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium at work.


Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

Catholics are bound to believe the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

 Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [Magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

The Code of Canon Law (1917) imposes the same obligation. ( See Canon 1323 section 1). Therefore, to reject the unanimous teachings of the theologians is to reject the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

4. To reject the unanimous teachings of the theologians is to deny the Infallibility of the Church.
 As demonstrated by theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: 327,  The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.) Therefore, the consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of Divine Tradition.

5. Proof of Church approbation of approved theologians.
(a) The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians.
(b) The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium.
(c) Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
(d) Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption.
(e) The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II for the new Modernist religion it created.

6. The enemies of theologians.
According to Salaverri (and Church history) they include: Protestants, Jansenists, Humanists, and Modernists.

7. The Magisterium further supports the theologians in the last two Ecumenical Councils.
 From the history of the Council of Trent and Vatican I (1870) it is certain that in the theologians was recognized, as a certain criterion of the truth of faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the theologians or of the theological schools.

8. When the Church has not pronounced a subject closed to debate, the theologians (and theological schools) may disagree. 
By argumentation, the theologians refine their arguments and clarify all sides of an issue until there is consensus, or the Magisterium takes sides. This is NOT "proof" that a theological school (or theologians in general) are "in error."

Examples of Approved Theologians Preventing False Interpretation of Magisterial Pronouncements 

 Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (July 18, 1870), declares: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione, seu jure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem: anathema sit."

Translation: "If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Emphasis mine)

 The "plain meaning" of this Magisterial text seems to teach infallibly that there will always be a pope except for the brief period of time between the death of one pope and the election of the next. (False) Conclusion: sedevacantism is heretical as it denies a "perpetual line of successors." Many opponents of sedevacantism have used this decree of the Vatican Council to denounce it. They are as theologically ignorant as the Dimonds, because they reject the theologians and come up with a private interpretation. Here's what real theologians teach about "perpetual successors:"

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

The (1870) Vatican Council's definition was directed against heretics who contended that (1) the Primacy was an extraordinary power Christ gave to St. Peter alone, (2) Christ did not intend it to be passed along in perpetuity to his successors, and (3) this power either died with Peter, or was passed along to the Church or episcopal college. (See Dorsch, de Ecclesia, 2:191-2) The definition therefore means, "a primacy of true jurisdiction, together with a full scope of rights and duties would continue in the Church, and this in virtue of the will of Christ or by divine law." (Dorsch, Ibid 2:191)

Rightly understood, the First Vatican Council does not oppose sedevacantism at all.

As a second example, Feeneyites are fond of repeating the second infallible canon on baptism from the Council of Trent: "Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema." Only "true and natural water" can confer baptism, so BOD and BOB cannot be true. Rejecting the theologians (and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium along with them), the Feeneyites make two fundamental errors. (1) BOD and BOB are not the sacrament of baptism, yet they can confer extra-sacramentally the grace of the sacrament. (2) The canon they cite was not ruling out extraordinary means of salvation by BOD and BOB, it was defining the matter of the sacrament.

 According to theologian Pohle, "That natural water is indispensable for the validity of Baptism has been clearly defined by the Tridentine Council: 'If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism...let him be anathema.' This declaration excludes the figurative use of the term 'water,' as employed by the later Socinians, and denies Luther's assertion that any liquid that can be used to bathe in, is valid matter for Baptism."

The Alleged "Historical Example" of Approved Theologians Teaching Error

 The Dimonds allege that the Council of Florence dogmatically defined the Canon of Scripture (Books of the Bible) and that after Florence, theologians still disputed the Canon of Scripture. Their whole contention is easily refuted in two points.

1.  Florence did not settle the issue of the Canon of Scripture dogmatically.
You have to be careful with the Council of Florence because not all that came from that Council is considered the dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council. This council was called to deal with the Eastern/ Latin Schism and many of its canons were directed to individual Eastern sects and not to the Universal Church. The portion of the council that dealt with the canon was a bull [a letter] from the pope to one of the Eastern sects (2/4/1442). For that reason it was not and is not accepted as being the formal definition of the Canon. That would later occur at Trent when the matter was taken up specifically for formal definition for the entire church. 

In their attempt to prove Florence definitive, they cite (out of context) Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus #20. Read in context what the pontiff wrote: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical." 

 The "ancient and unchanging truth" that was "solemnly defined"  deals with Divine Inspiration, not the Canon of Scripture! Notice how the pope says the subject was "finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." The First Vatican Council speaks to the Inspiration of Scripture, not the Canon. "The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author." Notice, too, how it mentions the Council of Trent, but not Florence. Hence, it was Trent and not Florence that dogmatically ended the dispute. The very decree of Florence says before the enumeration of Biblical Books, "It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit." No pope, nor theologian, nor Trent or Vatican I ever cited the Council of Florence as settling the issue of the Canon of Scripture. The fact the Florence got the Canon correct, shows the protection of the Holy Ghost in dogmatic development, and equally shows that the Church has never ruled against unanimous consent of the theologians. An issue not settled and open to debate does not have unanimous consent by definition, and is another matter altogether.

2. If the Dimonds are correct, Pope Leo X was a heretic. 
In their article, the Dimonds claim "after the Council of Florence, a famous cleric, in a Bible approved by Pope Leo X (though not in an infallible capacity), denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books." Here, the famous cleric is Cardinal Ximenes. If Florence had been dogmatic on the Canon of Scripture, Pope Leo X would be a heretic. The fact that Pope Leo approved the Bible is a testament to the fact the Canon of Scripture was NOT dogmatically defined. Would the Dimonds dare assert that because Bergoglio didn't "infallibly" allow adulterers to receive "communion" it's not formally heretical? Did Wotyla (John Paul II) escape the charge of heresy because he didn't "infallibly" promulgate the encyclical Ut Unam Sint? He didn't infallibly claim to order anyone to kiss the Koran as he did, so it's somehow not an act of apostasy? I could multiply these examples, but I think you get the point.

Conclusion

 The misfit, malevolent "monks" of MHFM have it exactly backwards. Those who reject the teachings of the theologians, reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and wind up in heresy, not those of us who follow them in keeping with the Church. You can follow the approved theologians of the Church, or let Fred and Bobby Dimond "teach" you. Be careful if you choose the latter. They have no ecclesiastical education or training (probably no secular learning beyond high school) and cannot claim to be real Benedictines. They will read Church documents and "interpret them" for you. They will declare you to be damned to Hell for not following their every utterance, so check their website daily (all their opinions are subject to complete change without notice, so it's up to you to keep abreast). They twist citations to fit their private interpretations, much like good Protestants. 

The only authentic interpreters of doctrine are the makeshift "magisterial" wannabe monks, Fred and Bobby Dimond; the Westboro Baptist version of "Traditionalism." I used to credit them for spreading the truth that the See of Peter is vacant, but the damage they do to souls and the True Church far outweighs the good. They will do anything, no matter how duplicitous, to keep people in their Feeneyite heresy--the one thing they never change--in much the same way the Jehovah's Witness sect will change everything except their doctrine denying people life-saving blood transfusions. 

So the next time Fred and Bobby Dimond come out with more "historical examples" of approved theologians teaching error, I hope you will remember not to put your faith in MHFM--Massively Heretical Fraudulent Monks. 

59 comments:

  1. Thank you for writing this post.
    I used to be a hardcore Dimond Bros supporter.
    It was 2 and a half years ago when I woke up.Our former priest (who recently died God rest his soul) taught me better over the course of 2 years.
    Last I heard,the Dimonds now demand true Catholics must stay at home on Sunday & Holy Days.
    They demand true Catholics must deny themselves sanctifying grace.
    That in itself is a massive contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad that holy priest woke you up to the Dimond frauds, my friend. I used to at least give them credit for exposing the Modernist Vatican, but no longer. The damage they do to souls and cult-like characteristics make them just as bad. People will associate Traditionalists with these two "monks" and their ever-changing doctrines.

      God bless,
      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Here in Brazil they have been a pest. Sedevacantismo here is known and avoided by most of the Catholics of the tradition because of them and because of the crazy groups that consecrated popes.

      God bless you, Introibo.

      Delete
    3. Give it time Junior,the true Catholic people of Brazil will reject the novus ordo eventually.

      Delete
    4. Thank you my friend. We don't need phony popes and phony monks preventing what will (hopefully) be the restoration of a true pope in the remnant Church.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Very good post Introibo. The two fakes need as much light shined on them as possible. They are liars and flip-floppers. So according to Freddie and Bobby I can go to a Byzantine rite of Mass if his heresies are not "notorious" but I can't attend a Sedevacantist chapel? I found a Website dedicated to exposing the Dimond fraudulent Benedictine claims here: 23rdstreet.com.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the resource!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. If you look at 23rdstreet.com closely, you will see it is quite anti-Catholic in places and appears to support what is commonly, but erroneously, known as "Eastern Orthodoxy". The various so-called Orthodox Churches teach heresy as well as being in schism.

      Delete
    3. Yes I saw that but some of the information found there is still very good. 23rdstreet.com exposes the Dimonds.

      Delete
  3. I remember a video of Fred and Bobby where they practically excommunicate all the leading sedevacantist bishops and priests and send them to Hell. I do not rule out the work they did against the modernists in the video that they collect the antipape heresies, nor the videos that they rebut the Protestants. Other than that, the rest of your stuff is either dubious or harmful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, and they hold double standard. Saints like Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, and others also believed in BOB and BOD, yet they think those Saints merely "made a mistake/error", but when others believe in the same thing, they immediately declare them as Heretics who will go to Hell.

      Delete
  4. Great article. I only have to disagree only on the question of ufology, since this type of artifice is much used by science atheists against our faith, and there are suspicions that some of these phenomena are preternatural. Studying ufology in the light of true faith is, to me, the same as a Catholic studying politics or biology to have weapons against communism and the naturalistic pantheism that followed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Introibo, I apologize for the last comment. I just read it and saw that I expressed myself badly. I do not say that Catholics should go deep into ufology, but rather that such phenomena in the future will be even more used by pantheists to deny the true faith. I see no problem in studying it, according to true faith, to refute it. And some cases concerning the subject may be preternatural. It would also justify the study of this.

      I, for example, study rather astronomy, but study in order to see more clearly the Creation of God. I see that ufology can be studied to unmask it precisely for the same reason: faith and truth.

      Delete
    2. You make good sense. The Dimonds take things too far; in my opinion they are obsessed with such issues, and it only serves to make real Traditionalists look strange. This hinders conversions.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Hi, Introibo,

    Thank you so much!

    For the Dimonds, they hold a double standard.

    1. Various Fathers and Doctors of the Church believed in BOB and BOD, while various Fathers and Doctors, according to them, (seemingly) did not believe in BOB and BOD, then why they simply take one side as truth?

    2. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, and many other Saints believed in BOB and BOD, yet for Dimonds, they just simply "made a small error/mistake, since no one alone is infallible".

    Yet when the Priests from SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, and other traditional Priests and laities believe in this, they will go to Hell.

    These are plain hypocrisies and double standards.

    Also, thank you for your clarification of the term "theologian". It seems that my guessing was right.

    God bless,

    G. P. W.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, do you know if Father Reginald Marie Garrigou Lagrange had written other volumes about Theological Virtues? I know he wrote Theological Virtue, Volume One: On Faith, and this title seems to be implying the existence of other volumes. Also, there are two other Theological Virtues, Hope and Charity, so it seems like there should be more. Do you know about this?

      Delete
    2. If you have a Kindle, I suggest you get the Reginald Garrigou Lagrange Collection of 16 of his greatest works available for just under $3 available at Amazon.com. An incredible resource from an amazing theologian!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Introibo - Liked the analogy of the Dimonds as the "Westboro Baptist Traditionalists"!! I always get a feeling of hate emanating from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Your feeling is supported by their continual condemnations to Hell of anyone who disagrees with any "doctrine" they proclaim.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Freddy and Bobby want so bad to be the go-to guys for Traditional Catholicism. They do everything they can to be that. But their pride and ambition keeps getting in the way and they keep falling into errors and contradictions. If you could list their teachings over the past fifteen years they are loaded with contradictions. But the biggest problem with them is that they LIE. It is astonishing that they even have a following considering that they outright lie about the whole Benedictine thing. I mean, isn't lying supposed to be a mortal sin according to Freddy? He and his brother love to expose sinners on their little videos and yet they have the audacity to lie about being Benedictines. They need to return all the donations they have taken in over the years because they knowingly committed fraud. Richard Ibranyi is on record testifying that Fred knew all along he was not a Benedictine monk. I really hope you keep these posts exposing the Dimonds coming Introibo. I don't think enough people are exposing them among traditional Catholics. These wannabes are scandalous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they are both scandalous and dangerous. I try to warn my readers of all such pitfalls in this time of the Great Apostasy.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. The Dimonds claim a valid priest,ordained in trad rite by valid Bishop pre-April 1969 or modern day traditional priests/Bishops,can absolve sins in confession.
    However,they say to avoid everyone's Holy Sacrifice of the Mass & to stay at home on Sundays,Holy Days,etc..
    The reason given is EVERY Priest,Bishop,and Chapel are mortally sinful Heretics.
    First,its impossible for them to personally know every Priest,Bishop,and Chapel on the planet.Second,how can a priest be able to confer one sacrament (penance) but not another,i.e. Holy Communion?That doesn't make any logical sense.
    Also,they claim Catholics can stay in a state of Grace by going to confession and praying 15 Decade Rosary daily.(I heard this said on their other channel called "Fatima Sacrifice")
    By that logic,we don't need Holy Communion for Sanctifying Grace and that makes Jesus Christ' crucifixion utterly pointless and worthless!
    Thank the Blessed Lord I was given the truth by our Priest and now realize the Dimonds are unqualified,uneducated,shysters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are so right my friend! No Traditionalist may receive ANY sacrament from a heretic EXCEPT in danger of death!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Dear Introibo,
      I check out your blog regularly, since I find it one of the most erudite, thought-provoking and useful ones. Thank you.
      I got some material from the Dimond's a few years ago, but eventually realised that it had bizarre aspects, and now the only piece I fond useful is the extensive catalog of heresies and errors in the Vatican II documents. But maybe I should be careful about that as well, if their respect for traditional theologians is lacking.
      Anyway, I have a question that relates somewhat to this post, since it refers to BOD/BOB:
      Considering the many people who consider themselves faithful Catholics but unwittingly rely upon invalid sacraments (due to their being administered by invalidly ordained priests), do you think that they obtain any graces at all as a result? I am thinking of an analogy to the mercy of God in affording the grace of baptism through Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, even though the form and matter of the sacrament are absent. Can we imagine such things as Confession of Desire or Eucharist of Desire, whereby faithful and sincere recipients can receive at least some of the graces from otherwise invalid sacraments? Or would such be just a pious, but vain, hope? Like praying for the souls of dead Protestant friends, perhaps.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the kind words my friend. As to your query:

      It is certainly possible that God bestows special graces upon people who, believing themselves to be Catholic, try to conduct their in a manner lives pleasing to God. There is indeed "Penance by desire" called perfect Contrition. There is also "Communion by desire" or "spiritual Communion." So, yes, it is possible that God can bestow special graces outside the reception of the Sacraments since He is not bound by His own creation. Even praying for deceased Protestant friends is not necessarily in vain. We don't know what transpired in those last hours, or minutes, or even seconds between the soul of that Protestant and God. He may very well have died as a Catholic by a special grace (BOD). However, we must be mindful that such is the rare exception NOT the rule, and we must convert as many as possible so that we fulfill the Great Commission and give people sure access to God's graces.

      We only know for certain that Judas is in Hell, and we only know for certain canonized saints are in Heaven. The fate of all others is known but to God (except by special revelation). Hence, "work out thy salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Your reference to Jehovah's Witnessism and the Dimonds is spot-on. Apparently, their mastication of Catholic theology, life and practice extends to the Christmas tree, which they ludicrously oppose as well. In their question and (frequently) wrong answer section, we find the following:
    Christmas Trees

    Is it a sin to have Christmas trees? Didn't God say to "learn not the way of the heathen?" Jeremiah 10:3-4 has wracked me with guilt.

    From the KJV it says "the work of the hands of the workman with the ax."

    One group says that this phrase is about chiseling the tree and another group says that this is just describing the swinging of the ax against the tree.

    Who's right? Please explain why. Thanks in advance.

    Regards.

    Dillon

    MHFM: No, we don't think people should have Christmas trees[!]. However, that is not to say that everyone who ever displayed one (out of a misguided view of Catholic tradition in that regard) committed idolatry.
    http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/E_2013_third_archive.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Dillon,

      Do not be troubled by your Christmas tree! Jeremias was talking about the religious RITES of pagans (according to theologian Haydock). If what the Dimonds were saying had any validity, then wouldn't statues of Christ, Mary and the saints also be banned on account of the Golden Calf? You are not "adopting the religious rites" of pagans by having a Christmas tree. The Church has never condemned having one, and some pious stories relate how when St. Boniface chopped down a tree to the pagan god Thor (which was the place where a small child was sacrificed each year to the false god), and behind it stood a little fir tree. Pointing to it he said, "This little tree, a young child of the forrest, shall be your holy tree tonight. It is the sign of an endless life, for its leaves are ever green. See how it points upward to Heaven? Let this be called the tree of the Christ Child; gather about it, not in the wild wood, but in your own homes; there it will shelter no deeds of blood, but loving gifts and rites of kindness." (See "The Christmas Tree" by Fr. William P. Saunders). I have written a post against Santa Claus, only because it entails the repeated lying to children by adults. It is possible to explain Santa as a symbol of St. Nicholas so that there is no lie involved, nor any detraction from Christ by some "God surrogate" who detracts from the true meaning of Christmas.

      So, as you can see, rightly understood, the Christmas tree is an excellent way to remind children of the true meaning of Christmas, and the wonderful story of St. Boniface.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Dear Dillon,

      Do not be troubled by your Christmas tree! Jeremias was talking about the religious RITES of pagans (according to theologian Haydock). If what the Dimonds were saying had any validity, then wouldn't statues of Christ, Mary and the saints also be banned on account of the Golden Calf? You are not "adopting the religious rites" of pagans by having a Christmas tree. The Church has never condemned having one, and some pious stories relate how when St. Boniface chopped down a tree to the pagan god Thor (which was the place where a small child was sacrificed each year to the false god), and behind it stood a little fir tree. Pointing to it he said, "This little tree, a young child of the forrest, shall be your holy tree tonight. It is the sign of an endless life, for its leaves are ever green. See how it points upward to Heaven? Let this be called the tree of the Christ Child; gather about it, not in the wild wood, but in your own homes; there it will shelter no deeds of blood, but loving gifts and rites of kindness." (See "The Christmas Tree" by Fr. William P. Saunders). I have written a post against Santa Claus, only because it entails the repeated lying to children by adults. It is possible to explain Santa as a symbol of St. Nicholas so that there is no lie involved, nor any detraction from Christ by some "God surrogate" who detracts from the true meaning of Christmas.

      So, as you can see, rightly understood, the Christmas tree is an excellent way to remind children of the true meaning of Christmas, and the wonderful story of St. Boniface.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. For the record --- "Dillon" did not write to you. Dillon wrote to the Dimonds about the imagined illicitness of having Xmas trees. I, "Anonymous" wrote to you, including the link for the email that a Dillon sent to the Dimonds, along with the Dimond's ridiculous response. I hope this helps.

      Delete
    4. Sorry about the confusion. I understand now that you were copying a letter to--and response from--MHFM. At least some of my readers may have gotten a better understanding of the Christmas tree!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Your articles and comments on the Dimonds are as atrocious as your theology, filled with lies and errors. You state: "[They] Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)."

    This is completely and totally false. False accusations, which you frequently make, are an example of how you are under the power of the Devil. The Dimonds have never said or taught that attending the una cum Mass is itself a grave evil to attend. Your statement is not true and you should issue a retraction. Obviously you don't know almost anything about their positions. Your research is shoddy and you are dishonest. The Dimonds positions are extremely consistent. You are a heretic who believes that souls can be saved in false religions. You don't profess the true faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bobby! (Or is it Fred?)

      Assuming you are a mere follower of our two befuddled "Benedictines," please explain how they went to an eastern Rite Vatican II sect Church for the "sacraments" but no loner do so, telling people who used to do exactly what they did are on the road to perdition. There is more than ample evidence for everything stated in my post. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they change positions and either try to explain away inconsistencies or attempt to revise what they previously wrote (much easier to do online than in magazines that may still be circulating, as was the case with the JWs).

      The Dimonds believe that you can't go to ANY Mass at all unless (their own made up) list of "requirements" or "conditions" is met. On their website they profess, " I would respond by saying that virtually every Mass that has been offered anywhere for the last century has been offered by a priest who prayed in union with a bishop who was clearly heretical." What was heretical? Belief in Baptism of Desire (BOD) and of Blood (BOB)--or rather their mis-characterization of the issue. This would entail all the bishops since the 1917 Code of Canon Law being heretical. So how could Cardinal Ratti become Pope Pius XI? Or Cardinal Pacelli become Pope Pius XII?

      From their website: "My present position on this issue would be that a Catholic may go and receive the sacraments from a validly ordained priest who accepts Benedict XVI as the pope under the conditions explained below. My personal position on this issue, at this point in the apostasy, is that you are not going for the Mass. You are merely going to the church to receive Communion and confession." Note well what he said; "My PRESENT position..." clearly implying he held previous positions at odds with this one! And on what do Fred and Bobby base this "position" ? Why, there own private interpretations of selected quotes, which is not the science of theology! This is "extremely consistent"?

      (Above quotes from http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/can-catholics-go-anywhere-to-receive-sacraments-today/#.WST1gtQrKt9)

      As to the charge that I'm under the power of the devil, didn't the Jews make the same claim about Christ Himself being "demon-possessed" because He spoke the Truth? (See St. John 8:48).

      Finally, as to false accusations, I suggest you retract your own. I do not believe that souls can be saved in false religions. Only True Catholics who die in the state of grace can go to Heaven. BOD and BOB in no way derogate from this truth, when rightfully understood. Before you tell me I have a speck in my eye, please remove the plank from your own. (See St. Matthew 7:5)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Here's another falsehood in your article. You stated: "Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings."

    These are just flat out lies. First, they don't state that traditional priests are always necessarily off limits for Communion and Mass. It depends on whether the priest is a notorious or imposing heretic, but since almost all of them are, almost none of them are options. But they do not hold that every traditionalist priest is necessarily off limits for Mass.

    Second, they don't say that anyone who disagrees on some of the issues about where one may receive a sacrament are necessarily condemned to Hell, so your characterization is dishonest. It's based on nothing. You are a liar. It's typical for dishonest people who lack a valid argument to misrepresent the truth in an attempt to bolster their charges. That's the case with you. You are in mortal sin for bearing such false witness publicly, among other things.

    I can see why you don't put your name behind your articles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please cite from what source we find the definition of an "imposing heretic" [not from Bobby and Fred, but an ecclesiastical source] and what impact this has on attending the Mass of a particular priest (I won't be holding my breath).

      They virtually damn everyone to Hell, except, of course, themselves. This is not a misrepresentation. Just read their web site. Notice that even you write, "they don't say ANYONE who disagrees on SOME of the issues.." clearly implying that there are some people who disagree on some of their "where to attend Mass and sacraments issues" who ARE condemned to Hell! If that doesn't get you, something else will, be it Baptism of Desire, or any other of their solemn pronouncements which are based on their private interpretations of Church teaching.

      I don't put my name behind my articles because I don't want to subject my family and friends to attacks from the enemies of the faith.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Here's another lie in your article. You stated: "Ironically, the only errors are in the article, not the approved theologians!"

    Even if you fail to see the significance of Florence's solemn decree on the canon, your statement is false, because you know that the theologians between Florence and Trent who denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books were wrong and in error. So, it's false for you to say that the only error was in the article not in the theologians. You must admit that those theologians (such as Cajetan, Ximenes, etc.), as well as Pope Leo X, were in error.

    So, you have lied again, but that's what you do. You are a liar. That's how easily your pathetic rhetoric is refuted and exposed. I have my doubts that you will even allow these comments to show up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is you who fail to see the significance of the decree of Florence, refusing [like Fred and Bobby] to submit to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. It would make Pope Leo X a heretic and false pope if Florence were infallible and he denied it, by word or deed. There were no approved theologians in error between Florence and Trent because it was an issue not yet decided by the Church. Understand? Probably not, unfortunately.

      I will always print comments provided they do not contain blasphemy or vulgarity. I rather enjoy publishing your comments, as not only do they fail to prove me a liar--they vindicate me!

      Thanks!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Wow, it’s amazing that you write such nonsense and fail to see the egregious error in it. Allow me to explain it for you, because you clearly have trouble with comprehension. Something can be erroneous even though the person who puts it forward is not a heretic and even before the Church has dogmatically defined the issue. For instance, the people prior to 1854 who taught that Mary was not immaculately conceived were definitely in error but not necessarily heresy. The fact that the Church did not dogmatically define the matter until 1854 does not change the fact that the position they put forward was erroneous. Their position on Mary’s conception was not true. It was wrong. Got it? It’s not that hard to understand.

      So, your statement that: “There were no approved theologians in error between Florence and Trent because it was an issue not yet decided by the Church” is utterly false and absurd. What you are saying is that it was not even false to assert that the deuterocanon is not inspired before Trent, but that position suddenly became false at Trent. But that’s wrong. It actually favors heresy. The deuterocanon was not inspired in between Trent and Florence. It was inspired when it was written. That was true since the death of the last apostle. Do you even know the basics of Catholic dogma? Since divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, anyone after the death of the last apostles who said the deuterocanon was not inspired was certainly IN ERROR, but not necessarily in heresy. Do you get it? Hence, your statement that the theologians were not even in error, even though they denied the inspiration of the deuterocanon, is absurd. It actually favors heresy because it implies that the deuterocanon was not truly inspired at that time but only became truly inspired when it was defined. It’s the bad result of your man-worshipping rejection of papal infallibility, which causes you to hold demonstrably false position that approved theologians cannot teach error.

      When the Church solemnly defines something, it doesn’t become true from that point forward. So, yes, the theologians such as Cajetan, Ximenes and Pope Leo X WERE CERTAINLY IN ERROR, even if, from your standpoint, they were not in heresy. The position they promoted, that the deuterocanon was not inspired, was wrong. So, your statement here is absurd nonsense: “There were no approved theologians in error between Florence and Trent because it was an issue not yet decided by the Church”.

      Delete
    3. Your claim that you don’t believe souls can be saved in false religions would be laughable if it weren’t such a horrible lie. Of course you accept the heresy that souls can be saved in false religions. Since you claim not to believe that, answer these questions:

      Was Fr. Denis Fahey teaching heresy when he said that Jews who reject Jesus can have the supernatural life God wants to see in every soul (i.e. sanctifying grace)?

      Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”

      Was Fr. Welp of the CMRI teaching heresy by saying that he ‘certainly’ agrees with Fr. Fahey, that a Jew who rejects Jesus can be saved? You can read where he expressed agreement here:

      http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/fr-bernard-welp-cmri/

      Was Archbishop Lefebvre teaching heresy when he taught that souls can be saved in Judaism, Buddhism, etc.? You’ve probably seen the quotes. Was Sanborn teaching heresy when he said that "souls can be saved in those false religions"?

      Was ‘approved theologian’ J. Pohle teaching heresy when he taught that Jews, Muslims and pagans outside the Church depart life in grace?

      J. Pohle, Predestination, 1911, Catholic Encyclopedia “The same is true of the numerous predestined who, though outside the pale of the true Church of Christ, yet depart from this life in the state of grace as catechumens, Protestants in good faith, schismatics, Jews, Mahommedans, and pagans.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)

      Delete
    4. Your reply shows your ignorance in full force.
      1.You equivocate on the meaning of “erroneous.” To be in error epistemically (i.e., as a matter of knowledge) by believing some proposition true when it is false (e.g. believing John Adams was the first U.S. President, instead of George Washington) is different from the theological censure of “erroneous.” The theological censure of “ERRONEOUS” applies to those statements which oppose a truth revealed by God but not yet clearly proposed by the Church. It is mortal sin to accept a theological statement that has been condemned as erroneous. (See theologian Van Noort, “Dogmatic Theology 3:290) When a proposition has not been settled by the Church, theologians may disagree. Of course, once settled, those who took opposing views would be in error epistemically, but not theologically as they did not advance a proposition condemned by the Church as “erroneous.” In any event, your comment is inapposite as we must accept the unanimous consent of the theologians, not a particular theologian on a disputed matter.

      2.What I said above applies to your second paragraph. The Canon of Scripture didn’t suddenly become fixed at Trent, anymore than Mary’s Assumption into Heaven became true in 1950 when defined by pope Pius XII. You accuse me of an absurdity I do not, and never have, held. The unanimous consent of theologians cannot teach error as this is how the Church teaches us by Her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Sure, some theologians were in error on a matter open to discussion—an epistemic error, not a theological one.
      3. Once more, your failure to understand terms comes into play yet again in your third paragraph. Pope Leo X CANNOT be in theological error by approving for the Church an incomplete Bible as true and complete. This would be a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church, which means the Church cannot teach anything contrary to Faith and morals—and not just in ex cathedra pronouncements. He was approving something not yet decided upon, and Pope Leo was not attempting to do so. As theologian Van Noort teaches, “To the primary object of infallibility [of the Church] belong specifically: 1. Decisions on the Canon, or the material extent, of Sacred Scripture…” The Dimonds also declare Florence on the Canon to be a solemn decision: “[It] was a ‘solemn definition’ of the Catholic Church. “ If by solemn they mean that it was either infallible or the contrary opinion deemed erroneous, Pope Leo X would be a heretic and an antipope. (Continued below)

      Delete
    5. Because you do not understand theological terminology, you end up looking ignorant (at best) and become heretical (at worst). My good friend thought Fatima was not a private revelation because over 100,000 people saw the miracle of the sun. He didn’t comprehend that “private” has a theological meaning, i.e. any revelation after the death of St. John, the last apostle in 100 AD. It doesn’t mean “seen only by one or a few” as in common parlance.

      In response to your queries: was Pope Pius IX in error when he wrote: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE)
      The typical Feeneyite retort is that “it’s not infallible.” However, I have demonstrated in response to your other comment that the Church is Indefectible. If BOD and BOB are not true, Pope Pius IX would be a heretic for teaching invincible ignorance. Was Pope Alexander VIII be a heretic for formally condemning the proposition that “pagans, Jews, heretics and others of the same kind experience no influence whatever from Christ, and it may therefore be rightly inferred that there is in them a nude and helpless will, lacking sufficient grace.” (December 7, 1690). The teaching of theologian Pohle is not limited to a phrase taken out of context (much like your misunderstanding of “error”) but is within a whole volume of Dogmatic Theology on grace and on the Sacraments. When read in context, the teaching of Pohle and Fahey mean that they are Outside the VISIBLE structure of the Church, so to all appearances they were Jews, etc, but died in the state of grace—only possible if they were in actuality within the Church. God can—at the moment prior to death—infuse both Faith and grace so that they die as CATHOLICS in the STATE OF GRACE.
      However, none of this will register with you because two men with no ecclesiastical training and no theological education know better than the most erudite and learned theologians solemnly approved by the Church. Two men born in the 1970s and having only a high school degree can pick up a copy of Denzinger, cherry pick quotes, and understand theology better than the popes, saints and theologians who all taught BOD and BOB.
      If this matter weren’t so serious, it would be funny.

      One of us certainly doesn’t “get it.” I’ve demonstrated beyond doubt that it isn’t me.

      I’ll be praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      If that's not Brother Peter Dimond you're arguing with, then it's one of his greatest disciples. His writing style is exactly the same.

      I completely disagree with you, by the way. I think the Dimonds are good theologians. Not infallible, of course, but none of them are, including those scandalously liberal pre-Vatican II theologians that you seem to so much admire.

      Moreover, the Dimonds are substantially correct on the salvation issue. Father Fahey's quote is outrageously heretical. Your assertion that God can infuse faith into the soul of a Jew at the moment of death is completely beside the point. What Father Fahey said was that a Jew "who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul." In other words, he was saying that a Jew could reject Our Lord and have sanctifying grace in him at the same time. How sick is that!

      Delete
    7. Your dishonesty is profound and gravely sinful. I specifically asked you about Fahey because he refers to a LIVING JEW WHO REJECTS JESUS CHRIST, AND HE SAYS THAT SUCH A JEW CAN BE IN THE STATE OF GRACE. His statement is blatantly heretical, and, if you were a Catholic (which you aren’t), you would acknowledge that fact. The fact that Fahey says that a living Jew who rejects Jesus Christ can be in the state of grace is important because it takes out of the equation all of the dishonest excuses heretics such as yourself bring up about ‘moment of death’ in a futile attempt to hide what you really believe and defend. Fahey doesn’t refer to a person converting before death. He says that a Jew living in rejection of Jesus Christ can be in a state of grace. The statement is blatantly heretical; yet, you defend it because you are a heretic.

      In response to it, you wrote: "When read in context, the teaching of Pohle and Fahey mean that they are Outside the VISIBLE structure of the Church, so to all appearances they were Jews, etc, but died in the state of grace—only possible if they were in actuality within the Church. God can—at the moment prior to death—infuse both Faith and grace so that they die as CATHOLICS in the STATE OF GRACE."

      First, you have attempted to rewrite the heretical words of Pohle and Fahey because you are a liar and a defender of what is evil and heretical. You also ignored the heretical statements of Sanborn and Lefebvre. Pohle refers to Muslims and Jews in the state of grace (there’s no such thing), and he even says they are ‘outside the Church’; yet, you still defend that outrageous and blatant heresy because you are not Catholic. Even though you have misrepresented what they said, your response reveals and confirms your heresy. For in it you argue and admit 1) that their blatantly heretical statements were not heresy and 2) that a Jew who rejects Jesus can actually be within/inside the Church, and 3) that one who rejects Jesus can actually be a Christian (anonymous Christianity). That is BLATANT AND CONDEMNED HERESY. The Council of Florence repeatedly defined that all Jews are outside the Church, alien to salvation, not in the Church, etc. You hold that someone can practice Judaism, be in the Church, be in grace, and be saved. That’s what you hold and defend. You are a total heretic. You deny EENS. You are not Catholic. That's a fact. You have no faith in Jesus Christ. Your defense of the heresy that Jews who reject Christ can be in the Church and have sanctifying grace proves without any doubt that you are in heresy. It also explains why you are motivated to lie about and attack true Catholics with so many distortions and falsehoods. You are an enemy of Christ and the Church, in rebellion against God's revelation and defined dogma.

      Also, you constantly go ad hominem with baseless charges because you are desperate to divert from facts such as the one above: you believe in the condemned heresy Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace and be inside the Church. You are a complete heretic. That is a fact.

      By the way, unless you pray for humility and to come to the true faith, your prayers are worthless before God. You don’t even believe in Jesus and you are a liar, as the above proves.

      Delete
    8. George,
      I respect you for your civility and passion for the truth. We disagree, and if you see my latest response to Fred and Bobby (I agree it's them or a wannabe in the extreme)I think it will answer your reaction to Fr. Fahey.

      God bless my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. Dear Fred and /or Bobby (or another wannabe),
      I find it more than slightly amusing that someone who rants about my being a “liar,” and “not Catholic,” accuses ME of ad hominem attacks!
      Let’s review:
      1. You did not understand basic theological concepts such as the meaning of “error” and “erroneous”
      2. You have not given any citation to an ecclesiastical source for what constitutes an “imposing heretic” and how that impacts attendance at Mass
      3. You think that two high school graduates can be “theologians.” This is not ad hominem. Would you allow two high school grads to perform surgery on you if they read a lot medical textbooks and quoted from them? If you did, you’d be a cadaver. Ironically, the Dimonds talk about their parents’ education, as if it were genetically passed down. I’m a lawyer and former science teacher, but I’m not a theologian. My training is not in theology or canon law, that’s why I consult the real experts approved by the Church.
      4. You don’t understand the difference between individual theologians being wrong and the unanimous consent of the theologians.
      Now, on to your current batch of ignorance:
      Just as you need to understand the theological nuances of words such as “error,” you need to understand what is meant by “rejecting Jesus Christ.” All non-Catholics “reject Jesus Christ” insofar as they do not believe in His One True Church. However, there is a difference from belonging to such a false religion and DELIBERATELY DENOUNCING CHRIST. What of a Jew in Israel, who has never been exposed to Truth of Christ? He would “reject Christ” only in a passive and ignorant manner (invincible ignorance).
      Continued below

      Delete
    10. Proof that this is the proper context is in the fact that Fr. Fahey ALSO taught that those who reject the True Church and/or die in mortal sin are damned. So, if a Catholic rejects Christ he is lost, but the Jew is saved? No! Just as St. Alphonsus Liguori proclaimed Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus AND BOD/BOB, there is no contradiction when rightfully understood. The Holy See formally condemned a proposition of Baius, which says that “Perfect and sincere charity can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” Therefore, catechumens (who are not yet baptized with water) can belong to the Church by desire. They are, indeed, Catholics in the state of grace. The Code of Canon Law (1917) supports this in Canon 1239 section 2, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”
      This demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE for someone not baptized to be received in the Church prior to baptism. Why then, cannot a Jew in invincible ignorance (“rejects Christ”) and desires to do all God requires of him, AND has perfect contrition for his sins, be within the Church, much like the catechumen? At the moment of death God would infuse explicitly the faith he desired implicitly. This would be a rare miracle of God, like allowing certain saints to go years without food. It is not the normal course of events. Just as we must feed the hungry, we must convert the non-Catholics. This is, therefore, NOT the heretical “anonymous Christian” of Rahner who taught universal salvation!
      But of course, Fred and Bobby will call me a “liar,” a “heretic” and so on, ignoring the facts above.
      St. Alphonsus Liguori taught BOD and BOB after Florence and stated, “..Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.” (See “Moral Theology” Bk. 6, nn. 95-97). Did this great Doctor of the Church not know the teaching of Florence? How did he get canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church? Bobby and Fred will say he was “mistaken”(!)

      Delete
    11. According to their website: “St. Alphonsus says that BOD (‘baptism of desire’) does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin. According to his explanation, someone who dies with a ‘baptism of desire’ may need to spend time in Purgatory. That’s actually a fatal problem for the ‘theory’ because the Church has dogmatically defined that the grace of baptism is not merely the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.”
      Two problems: St Alphonsus got it wrong, but Fred and Bobby “discovered” the error of this great Doctor of the Church!! (That must have been some high school they attended!) He “made a mistake” yet I, who know not one-tenth as much theology as St. Alphonsus, am a heretic! Can anyone say “special pleading”? Was Pope Pius IX “mistaken” in declaring him a Doctor of the Church?
      Also, BOD is not a sacrament and does not act in the same way. God can save as HE Wills (not as Fred and Bobby would like him to do). You need sanctifying grace to be saved, and God can act extra-sacramentally. So, St. Alphonsus was wrong, or as the Dimonds have on their website, “YES, SAINTS CAN BE WRONG AND FAIL TO REALIZE THINGS.” Apparently, so can Popes and catechisms, but NOT Fred and Bobby, our Infallible guides to Heaven!
      Unless you can respond charitably, like George R., whom I respect, please give it a rest. It’s nearly midnight in NYC and unlike Fred and Bobby, I have a real job!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Introibo,
    I don't say that Fr. Fahey was a heretic, only that what he said was blatantly heretical. That's why I find it hard to believe that any Catholic would want to defend it.

    You write: "What of a Jew in Israel, who has never been exposed to Truth of Christ? He would “reject Christ” only in a passive and ignorant manner (invincible ignorance)."

    First of all, Introibo, words have specific meanings. "To reject" and "to be ignorant of" do not mean the same thing. That's obvious. Therefore, the fact that you apparently feel the need to blur the distinction between the two words is an indication of just how untenable your defense of Fr. Fahey's statemnet actually is.

    Moreover, even if a Jew were invincibly ignorant of Our Lord, he could never have sanctifying grace while in that state, for the simple reason that the Catholic Faith, which he lacks, is the principle and cause of sanctifying grace. For it is of faith that without the Catholic faith no man was ever justified, nor is it possible to please God (Council of Trent). So even your forced interpretation of Fr. Fahey's words can save them from condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      I must admit that Fr. Fahey's words sound "offensive to pious ears." Upon further inspection, they are not offensive or heretical.

      I agree that "reject" and "ignorance" have different meanings. However, the distinction was NOT clear-cut in the theology manuals pre-Vatican II. This is shown by theologian Tanquerey, who tells us that in the theological method "...It is necessary, too, that the sense of the words be determined according to the accepted meaning at the time of the definition and according to the discussions and decisions of the Council Fathers and of the later theologians." (See "Dogmatic Theology" 1:245) Jews, pagans, and ANY Non-Christian are often said to "reject Christ" not personally, but insofar as the RELIGION rejects Christ. ""Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters." (St. Matthew 12:30) In 1800s America, the word "gentleman" referred to a land owner. Hence, to say "George is a gentleman," was not paying you a compliment, but stating a fact. Fr. Fahey was clearly denoting a Jew who rejected Christ, not personally, but simply by virtue of his religion which rejects Christ. How do you explain that Fr. Fahey declares Catholics in mortal sin, and those who leave the Church go to Hell, but a Jew would be saved who personally knows of Christ and rejects Him? Fr. Fahey was not mentally imbalanced and the Magisterium would not let stand a statement which, if it meant what you think it does, would be heretical.

      As to your second point, is not the virtue of faith infused at justification along with sanctifying grace and the other theological virtues? Would you not agree that a two-day-old baby who gets validly baptized has the Catholic Faith? Yet, how is this possible unless it is there in an implicit manner? Could this not also be possible for the Jew in invincible ignorance and "rejects" Christ by virtue of his false religion but NOT personally?

      Some things to think about my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. Whenever Fred & Bob or their mind-controlled disciples wish to call anyone who disagrees with them "liars" that person would do well to remember that the Dimond brothers are liars from the get-go. They are not Benedictine monks and that is just a fact. Again, I recommend inquirers to visit www.23rdstreet.com and see the case against Fred and his self-made ministry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Introibo- The above website www.23rdstreet.com promotes a book entitled "The Sedevacantist Delusion" written by John C. Pontrello. The book is promoting leaving the Roman Catholic Faith for the Eastern Orthodox. https://thesedevacantistdelusion. Also the 23rd Street website has articles calling Popes "heretics". A book is cited: "Vicars of Christ" "The Dark Side of the Papacy" by Peter de Rosa. I am not disagreeing with what they say about the Dimonds, but wanted to bring to your attention that the 23rd Street Website and Mr. John C. Pontrello have agendas of their own - getting people to leave the Roman Catholic Faith for the Eastern Orthodox. At this point, I don't know which website is worse, MHFM or 23rd Street!! Your thoughts??

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the heads-up Joann! I visited there some time ago and don't remember that other stuff being there. I will be much more careful in double and triple checking sites before allowing people to comment about them.

      I ask my readers to stay away from the 23rd street website. Combatting one error with another is not the way to go. There is enough to condemn the Dimonds without the 23rd street website.

      Many thanks and God bless!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. I should have paid closer attention to a similar comment made above! I'm not making excuses for myself, but I've been overwhelmed with work this past 3 weeks or so. The commenter mentioned 23rd street's pitfalls and another comment agreed but said the information on the Dimonds was good nevertheless. This may be true, but visiting a site that has heresy of its own, can be dangerous to souls. Stay away from 23rd street!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Bob Dimond? Are you still out there? Come on Bobby, don't be afraid to prove yourself. You claim to be a Benedictine monk so prove it here for the benefit of all the nice people who visit this blog (at least one of whom thinks you are a cough cough great theologian). Oh Bobby don't run. Come on now, don't cower in the face of tough questions. I dare you to prove yourself right here and now. Begin with your self-appointed founder Joe Natale. Are you going to dodge the public now like you and your sissy brother do when you steal sacraments from the Byzantine Church in Rochester after removing your monk costumes? lol.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ask the Dimond Bros about St.Emerentiana.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? Will they claim she appeared to them and gave them "mission" to preach, teach, judge, and condemn?

      Delete
    2. Read about her martyrdom.

      Delete
    3. Ahhh Anonymous 2:33 I think I see where you are going with this...From the Catholic Encyclopedia we read "Some days after the burial of St. Agnes Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on 23 January. In the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" she is mentioned under 16 September, with the statement: In coemeterio maiore. She is represented with stones in her lap, also with a palm or lily."

      So this is a story of a MARTYRED catechumen. According to the teaching of Fred and Bob she is burning in hell. How did Fred and Bob Dimond respond to this?

      Delete
  17. The jig is up Fred and Bob. More and more people are waking up to who you are and who you are not. The only thing you can do to stop the turning tide is try and silence the truth by suing.

    ReplyDelete