Contending For The Faith---Part 25

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Countering the Sophistry of the Dimond Brothers

Last week's post ("The Dimonds, Ensoulment, And Baptism Of Desire') was a critique of a video put out by Fred and Bobby Dimond who go by the names of "Brother Michael" and "Brother Peter," respectively. They run the "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM) in  Fillmore, New York; an organization not recognized by the Vatican II sect, nor is it recognized by Traditionalist clergy such as the SSPV and CMRI. They run a website (vaticancatholic.com) which, ironically, has nothing to do with either the Vatican or Catholicism.

The Dimonds claim to infamy is in spreading the heresy that only the Sacrament of Baptism using water can save someone, and that dogmatic Church teaching on Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) are actually heresies. This heresy is referred to as "Feeneyism," so named after the excommunicated Jesuit, Leonard Feeney (1897-1978), who was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953 for heresy (not "disobedience" as his followers falsely claim). Feeney founded a cult and abused children, having them raised "communally" by married couples who became "brothers" and "nuns" without papal permission and in open violation of Canon Law, Natural Law and Divine Law. (To read more about Feeney, please see my post: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html). 

Much to my surprise, Bobby Dimond himself ("Brother Peter") submitted comments to my post, which I published and gave a response in an Addendum to the post. He came back again. I published his comments and, once more, replied in an Addendum (no. II). Yet a third time he comes back, and a third Addendum. Like a horror movie vampire that can't be killed and keeps returning, Bobby sends what he claims will be his "final" comments. I had no more time to spare and had fallen behind in my work, so I'm keeping my promise to publish whatever he sends by putting his comments both in the comments section of last week's post, and in the body of this post. 

Bobby has done a great service by commenting. First, it shows that by God's grace, this blog is having an effect in combating Feeneyism. Bobby's claim to the contrary, he wouldn't be coming here to comment unless it was having such an effect. I have had readers comment that they were Feeneyites until they started reading this blog, Deo gratias. Secondly, he has given me a unique opportunity to show the sophistry he employs that has led (and continues to lead) countless people into heresy, and imperils their eternal souls. The first part of this post deals with how Bobby and his brother "argue" and twist Church teaching to fit their heresy. In similar manner, the Jehovah's Witnesses sect first decides what they want to believe, and then they twist selected verses of the Bible out of context to "prove" their made up belief correct. 

The second part will focus on Bobby's "final" comments to me, and it should be painfully apparent how he is manipulating Church teaching to fit his own teaching. 

 The False Foundations of Bobby's Feeneyism

I. An Incorrect Understanding of the Magisterium

While claiming that no one else has a correct understanding besides them, the Dimonds can be definitively shown to be the ones in error. (Although I will be addressing Bobby Dimond from this point on, everything said of him applies equally to his brother, Fred Dimond). If you peruse MHFM website, you will see that for Bobby the only teachings that "really count" are (the few) ex cathedra (infallible) pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium whether issued by the pope alone (i.e., the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pope Pius XII decreed the dogma of the Assumption of Mary) or by an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope (e.g., The Council of Trent's Canons Concerning Justification).  For Bobby, these decrees are the rule of faith, and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is not really infallible unless it coincides with the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Remember the definitions of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium:

What is the Magisterium? According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is Divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19).

What constitutes the Magisterium? According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]; words in brackets and emphasis are mine).

The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council (1870).  The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra pronouncements of popes and Ecumenical Councils) and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible.

(a) So, we know that the UOM is equally infallible from the Extraordinary Magisterium. 

 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.

(b) 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 (UOM) 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)

The immediate objection from Bobby will be that Tuas Libenter isn't infallible, and the letter wasn't addressed to the whole Church. This is his incorrect understanding for all to see. As theologian Van Noort explains: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of Divine-Catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (Van Noort, Ibid, pg. 222; Emphasis mine).

Bobby rejects the infallibility of the UOM as dogmatically defined by the Vatican Council in 1870. If catechisms and the unanimous teachings of the theologians contradict his private interpretation of some ex cathedra pronouncement, the UOM must be discarded--he thereby rejects the definition of the Council, making him a heretic. 

The objection that Tuas Libentur does not command consent is proven wrong, as Pope Pius IX cites this very letter of his in the Syllabus of Errors:

CONDEMNED ERROR #22:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863

The Magisterium teaches us. However, Bobby does not (at least in practice) let himself be taught by the UOM. Before I was an attorney, I was a science teacher. I would check student answers against my answer key to see what they got correct and wrong on an exam. This is grading. That's what Bobby does. Check the UOM for error against the Extraordinary Magisterium, as if you grade the UOM by the ex cathedra decrees, when both are equally infallible and cannot contradict each other.

 II. Bobby is Supremely Unqualified in the Judgements he Makes

Someday, we may see a picture of Bobby next to the word ultracrepidarian in the dictionary. An ultracrepidarian is a person who "expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise." If you cite the teachings of the approved theologians, Bobby will intone, "Theologians are not infallible." (Sound familiar?).

What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church? 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.

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.  (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:357-358). 

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 (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. 

Theologian 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.  According to theologian Scheeben:

Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben, A Manual of Catholic Theology,  1:83; Emphasis mine).

Bobby Dimond: Arrogance and Incompetence on Steroids

Bobby and his brother Fred have no ecclesiastical education or training, and no secular education beyond high school. Yet, Bobby will tell you that when St. Alphonsus Liguori (a DOCTOR of the Church, whose theological status is far superior than ordinary theologians) taught BOD, he replies that the saint and Doctor of the Church made "innocent mistakes" about the subject.  Likewise, there is an entire article on Bobby's website in which he picks out "the errors" of theologian Van Noort, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. (See vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual). 

St. Alphonsus Liguori, a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church wrote in Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"

When Pope Gregory XVI canonized St. Alphonsus on May 26, 1839, the Bull of Canonization declared his works could be read "without the least fear of finding the smallest error." Moreover, when someone is being considered as a Doctor of the Church, myriad theologians and bishops go over everything he wrote to detect errors. Why? Because their works will be held out for other theologians to use as an exemplary standard. The pope, guided by the Holy Ghost, will then declare him a Doctor. No pope, bishop, or theologian was ever able to pick out the "innocent mistakes" until Bobby came along! 

Moreover, he knows the state of one's soul. St. Alphonsus made "innocent mistakes" (not very innocent if they lead people into heresy) yet other theologians are heretical. Ostensibly the argument is that since St. Alphonsus was canonized, he could not have been guilty of heresy. However, that argument fails miserably. What about before his canonization? Wouldn't they have discovered these "mistakes" and stopped the canonization process? 

Any Feeneyite reading this may say, "What about Introibo, the author of the blog? He was a science teacher who became a lawyer; how does that qualify him to make theological judgements?"  Answer: (a) That doesn't qualify me, and (b) thankfully, I'm not doing what Bobby does. I wouldn't even have this blog, but for the state of sedevacante. I take what the Church has always taught, and try to make sound, valid arguments about how to try and make the best Catholic way through these times. I do NOT "pick out heresies" from approved theologians, find "innocent mistakes" in the works of Doctors of the Church, and "damn to Hell" anyone who disagrees. Big difference.

Finally, the use of experts applies in all areas of life. Rhetorical question: If you need medical help, do you see an educated and trained medical doctor, or some man with a high school diploma who read some medical books and fancies himself a physician? Hopefully, it's the former, unless you want to wind up as a cadaver. If you act that way as regards to your physical life, how much more important is your immortal soul? Do you want to trust the teachings of the approved theologians who are an extension of the Magisterium, or will you trust in Bobby Dimond?

III. Selective and Hypocritical Use of Sources

Bobby will cite to a source when it suits his needs. Theologians are not infallible, unless they agree with him on a point, and then they are cited. This goes back to (I) above, a wrong understanding of the Magisterium. Here's an except from an article on the MHFM website denying Mary her title Co-Redemptorix:

While the catechism is not infallible, it reiterates the truth that was solemnly defined in the aforementioned councils.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.” (Tan Books, p. 372) (See vaticancatholic.com/mary-co-redemptrix-co-redeemer; Emphasis mine). 

Bobby thinks that the Church can lead people into error and evil via Catechisms approved to teach the faithful, unless it reiterates what was infallibly taught ex cathedra prior. Many things a catechism teaches were not defined ex cathedra prior to its publication. So which of these parts are acceptable? How can you ever trust the Catechism the Church gave the faithful to use? Bobby Dimond will tell you! He and Fred are the "recognize and resistors" of pre-Vatican teaching for their Feeneyite followers. 

Bobby also knows the state of the soul of any given individual. Anyone who disagrees with him is a "liar" (his favorite word), and a 'heretic," unless you "make an innocent mistake" like St. Alphonsus. He also  knows the fate of the departed, whether they're in Heaven or Hell. (I wonder if it's a Feeneyite version of the horror movie The Sixth Sense, "I see dead people!"). He can also discern demonic possession based on " demonic facial movements"--(See vaticancatholic.com/dr-james-white-and-demons). 

Follow Bobby Dimond and his brother Fred at the risk of your soul

Bobby's "Final Comments"

Please see the Addendums to last week's post if you want complete context as to these comments. Remember what I wrote above when reading what Bobby wrote. 

Bobby Dimond's comment will be in black font, with my response underneath in red font.

Bobby writes: One would think that after I refuted your misrepresentations, lies, and the blatantly false translation which you backed in the most arrogant fashion, you might be humbled and less arrogant. But no, you have a bad spirit. You should also apologize to me for unleashing a torrent of absurd insults when you were the one who was (once again) proven totally wrong. Now it’s even more clear why you insist upon remaining anonymous.

Reply: Notice Bobby's projection of his faults onto others. It is he and his brother who misrepresent Church teaching. It is Bobby the ultracrepidarian who thinks he can "find heresies" in approved theologians and "innocent mistakes" in the work of St. Alphonsus. Actually, it's more than arrogance; it's delusional. The epithets are in every comment--"liar" as per usual--and, of course, all are bad-willed. Yet HE demands an apology! However, one of my readers affirms that Bobby never wrote that one should not attend Una Cum because of the false pope's name, but for other reasons. It is also true they go against Church teaching regarding periodic continence ("NFP") but do not condemn marital pleasure. For those two items I do (and have in the last post) honestly apologize. Not for anything else. Unlike Bobby, I realize I'm not infallible.

As I have not heard back from my translator, I will stipulate his translation is more accurate, but that is not dispositive and avails him nothing. Yet, Bobby's translation of the Latin in Canon 1 is clearly wrong and I was right. That makes a big difference. Will he admit his error? (Rhetorical question).

 

Bobby writes: I’ll make a few concluding points (and then I must move on). With regard Abbo and Hannon and canon 1, you are wrong and their citation doesn’t prove anything for you. All it shows is that they believed that ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching that applies to the Oriental Church. Yes, we know; and they were wrong. The refutation of the argument you are making was covered in the video, but I’ll state it again here briefly in a slightly different manner. It is rather simple. Canon 1 makes it clear that something doesn’t bind the Oriental Church from its mere inclusion in the Code. Rather, there must be something about “the nature itself of the thing” that attaches to the Oriental Church. Thus, the applicability to the Oriental Church comes from “the nature itself of the thing”, NOT FROM INCLUSION IN THE CODE. Well, error/false doctrine doesn’t have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). Error does not apply to or bind anyone. THIS IS THE KEY POINT. 

Reply: Notice; canonists Abbo and Hannon are wrong as to the interpretation of Canon 1. Bobby concedes the eminent canonists believed in BOD and that it applied to the Oriental Church, but they were wrong. Why? They are "wrong" because Bobby said so.  He claims that it must be "in the nature of the thing"--and the nature of BOD is error/false doctrine. Abbo and Hannon with their advanced ecclesiastical training and education, writing subject to the Magisterium checking them, and the Church allowing their writings to be taught in the seminaries--are all wrong. Only Bobby gets it right. 

Once more: At 28 minutes into the video, they claim that the exception for "by their nature" does not apply to Baptism of Desire, because those words in Latin quae ex ipsa rei natura, "from the nature itself--the thing" means that only dogmatic decrees repeated by the Code from e.g., the Vatican Council of 1870, would the apply to the Oriental Church, and only then be universal. Wrong!

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:

"(b) by way of exception, the Orientals are bound by the laws of the Code:

1. ex ipsa rei natura, when the laws involve matters of Faith (7) or refer to or interpret the Divine or the Natural law (8)"

Footnote #7 gives examples of Canons which involve matters of Faith and bind the Oriental Rites as well as the Latin Rite: "7. E.g., can. 107, 218, 737, 831." (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:5)

What does Canon 737, specifically enumerated by Abbo and Hannon, teach? 

Canon 737 states, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation..."(Emphasis mine).

The canonists teach that: "As Canon 737 notes, men can be saved by the desire of baptism, if it involves a perfect conversion to God through perfect contrition and a love of God above all things. This is a matter of Faith. " (Ibid, pgs. 744-745; Emphasis mine). Therefore, Canon 737, teaches BOD is binding on all Rites, because it is a matter of Faith. 

Canon 107 deals with the distinction between laity and clergy being of Divine Law.  Canon 218 deals with the Supremacy of  the Roman Pontiff being of Faith, and Canon 831 deals with the fixing of the manual stipend. Are these really of Faith and bind the whole Church? How can we trust Abbo and Hannon who were "wrong" about BOD?  Answer: Bobby will tell you! Fillmore, New York is the New Rome with Fred and Bobby as the new Co-Pontiffs of their Feeneyite Fiefdom. 

Now, take out your "Extraordinary Magisterium checklist" and see if the Canons comport with some ex cathedra decision prior.  Well, bad news for Bobby. On pg. 745 of Abbo and Hannon, when they declare BOD as a matter of Faith, footnote 3 cites the reason as The Council of Trent's Decree on Justification.

"Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):

   "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)"

The Council of Trent is cited in support of BOD being a matter of faith binding the whole Church in a decree that expressly mentions St. John 3:5. I hope you can appreciate the wonderful irony of this all. Bobby is (gasp!!) A JOHN 3:5 MOCKER!! He twists what it really means as taught by the Church.

Wait: Bobby says "desire" really means "intent to receive, " even when all Church authorities don't interpret it that way. Does "desire" mean "intends to receive"?

No. In Trent's Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction, we read:

"The Synod [Trent] teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament [Penance] be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein" (Emphasis mine)

We have a teaching on "Penance by desire." Later, the Decree states,

"This Sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."

The Council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. However, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive the effect of the sacrament of Penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.

Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of Penance. Otherwise, it would not be true that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.

Bobby writes: ‘Baptism of desire’ is an error, a novelty, which contradicts the Church’s dogmatic teaching on John 3:5 (and other truths on Church membership, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, Church unity, etc.). Therefore, it does not have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). People like you will reply by stating: no, ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching and therefore applies to the Oriental Church. You are wrong, but to show that it’s true (not false), and therefore applicable to the Oriental Church “from the nature itself of the thing” (not from inclusion in the Code), you have to prove it from something other than the Code (because, as per canon 1, mere inclusion in the Code does not make something binding on the Oriental Church). But you cannot show that ‘baptism of desire’ is true and applicable to the Oriental Church from things outside the Code.

Reply: So, BOD is an "error" and a "NOVELTY"? 

Well, Abbo and Hannon cited the Council of Trent. How about Pope St. Pius V?

Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567:

  Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

• Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
• That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
• A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

Yet these propositions would have to be maintained by Bobby if there is no BOD. He stands condemned by Pope St. Pius V.

Let's go back further: Is a 13th century teaching a "novelty," Bobby?

Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:

   "I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

   "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "

Still "novel"? Ok, how about St. Augustine (354- 430):

City of God

   "I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit" (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).

   "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." (Denzinger 388).

That novelty has been around a very long time, Bobby. These proof are also outside the Code of Canon Law.  Checkmate. However, let us continue so Bobby doesn't make another "irrefutable video" and claim not everything was answered because his brilliance stumps everyone.

Bobby writes: On the contrary, we can show that it’s false. Thus, your argument fails. It’s logically refuted. God protected the Church from teaching the false doctrine of baptism of desire when canon 1 disclaimed that all of its canons were universally binding.

You also proved my entire point about the Code. After I refuted your significant error (and actually your sophistical distortion) about canon 748, you reluctantly conceded (another defeat for you) that the Code’s law in canon 747 is based on a belief in immediate ensoulment. Yet, you don’t believe that immediate ensoulment is binding and absolutely true. For example, you stated:

YOU STATED: “That immediate animation is thereby taught by the Code such that it is infallible or even settled; DENIED [BY YOU].”

YOU STATED: “Immediate ensoulment is “COMMONLY” (not definitively) accepted.”

Let me spell it out for you, John 3:5 mocking heretic: if you admit that the Code’s law in canon 747 is not based on something necessarily true and binding, you are admitting that the Code’s law in canon 747 (about who should be baptized) could be wrong, false or bad. The only way that the law in canon 747 of the Code is spotless is if immediate ensoulment is NECESSARILY TRUE. Got it? The fact that some theologians of the time didn’t think immediate ensoulment was settled is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that immediate ensoulment is INTIMATELY BOUND TO THE CODE’S LAW IN CANON 747. Also, it doesn’t help you to say that the Code is just adopting the “safer or more probable course”. If it’s infallible in all of its canons, then its laws connected with faith must be based on the certainly correct position, not one that could be incorrect. But you don’t believe that canon 747 proves that immediate ensoulment is necessarily true and binding. With that admission YOU DEMOLISH your entire article and prove my point.

Reply: Nope. A universal or general disciplinary law can be infallible yet not immutable. Theologian Van Noort explains:

"[The Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification." (Dogmatic Theology, [1956], 2:115; Emphasis in original).

The Code cannot be at odds with Faith or morality, but the Canons can change and still be infallible in not giving error or evil. To be safer (because of the now majority opinion of immediate ensoulment) we will baptize as if it were true. It was admitted by theologians in 1918 that the Code was NOT deciding the issue of ensoulment. Proof:

From the 1918 Irish Ecclesiastical Review, December issue, theologian O'Donnell writes:

"There are some, of course, who still claim that the ancient hypothesis [delayed ensoulment] is correct. They think everything is best explained on the supposition that, at the beginning of life, the vegetative soul comes first, then the sentient, and finally the rational; and that at the end of life, they depart in the inverse order. With the merits of the discussion, the practical moralist has little concern. He is satisfied in knowing that the doubts in favor of the theory [delayed ensoulment] are so slight that they have been completely disregarded in the Canon already quoted (747). And if pressed further, he will reply that if, notwithstanding these doubts, he is sometimes obliged to confer Extreme Unction after the human soul would 'appear' to have departed, so, again notwithstanding these doubts, he is obliged to confer baptism before 'common sense' would declare that the human soul has come into existence. In other words, he accepts a high degree of probability as a sufficient standard, and acts accordingly." (pg. 498; Emphasis mine). 

What part of "high degree of probability" don't you get? The Code takes the safer course without settling anything. Remember that this citation was written the very year the Code took effect, by a theologian examining the meaning of those Canons. Theologians McCarthy and Carol likewise confirm that immediate and delayed animation are opinions, with immediate animation being the common one replacing delayed animation. If canon law settled the matter, the Magisterium under true popes would have censured anything to the contrary.

Bobby writes: For if what’s intimately connected to canon 747 isn’t necessarily true or absolutely binding, then the Code is fallible and the same principle could apply to other canons. That’s called a defeater argument, one you made against yourself in your own words by your own admissions.

In our video we also proved that the Code is fallible because canon 1239 on giving burial to unbaptized catechumens certainly contradicts the Church’s infallible teaching and traditional law that Catholics are not permitted to hold communion after death with the unbaptized and with those who were not in the Church’s communion during life. That is the Church’s traditional, universal and infallible law (approved by various popes, etc.), which is connected to the divine law. That teaching/law of the Church outweighs the fallible Code’s 20th century novelty. We proved that in our video. End of debate.

Reply: As demonstrated above, no canonist/theologian believed that adopting the safer course based on majority opinion of the theologians makes the Code fallible. Since it's not being decisive, and adopting a safer course, it is not injurious in any way. Likewise, Canon 1239. Not every catechumen necessarily dies with BOD. They may lose the faith or commit mortal sin prior to death in the internal forum and be lost. Therefore, you can deny them burial or grant them burial as you may choose to favor either side. As Abbo and Hannon clearly teach, "The reason for this rule [Christian burial for catechumens] is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through baptism of desire."(See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:439; Emphasis mine). You have a just reason to suppose they died with BOD, not that every single catechumen so dies. 

Oh yes, it is the end of the debate Bobby. Guess who was shown to be unqualified, incompetent, and imputing bad will on anyone who dares to disagree with him? (Psst.. it's either me or you..and it wasn't me). 

Bobby writes: There are many other points in our video that refute your false position and your false understanding of Church teaching (Decretals of Gregory IX, etc.). Anyone can watch the video. We have carefully addressed and refuted all of the ‘best arguments’ your side brings up. But you cannot even begin to address ours. Indeed, if you had to face cross examination about our arguments (on John 3:5, Church membership, the grace of baptism, etc.), it would be clear within a short period of time that your position is false and contradictory (and that you are, of course, a liar). You also accept the heresy that souls can be saved in false religions. No saint in Church history believed what you heretics do about salvation (i.e. that souls can be saved in false religions, which is the position of the CMRI, Sanborn’s fake sede group, etc.). Finally, below is the Church’s dogmatic teaching on John 3:5 (which you reject and mock). One day you will have to face the One who taught this dogma (the Truth Himself). Barring a conversion, it won’t go well for you. You will be condemned. This dogmatic definition proves that the Church teaches that John 3:5 is a dogma without exception.

Reply: Once again we see the self-congratulatory, reason-challenged Bobby throwing out his favorite invective from his (limited) vocabulary ("liar, liar, pants on fire"!).  However, who is lying now? I do not (and never have) believed that souls can be saved in false religions. Will YOU apologize, or does that duty not apply to YOU, Bobby? 

A Video You Must See

Bobby writes: Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin, ex cathedra: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Also, people should see the short video we did on this particular dogmatic statement in Sess. 5 of Trent. It quotes a prominent pre-Vatican II theologian who admitted that the aforementioned passage in Sess. 5 of Trent was, in his view, one of the only dogmatic definitions in Church history about a particular passage of Scripture. In other words, the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 are a dogma that all Catholics must profess without exception. That trumps the fallible Code, and it refutes your position. But the problem with people like you is that you don’t believe in papal infallibility. You believe only in man, which is why you’ve adopted a completely false understanding of the Magisterium (as our video proves without any doubt). You don’t believe and profess, but rather condemn, the Church’s teaching that everyone must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved. You reject and mock the Church’s highest teaching and the words of Jesus Christ. Goodbye.

John 3:5 Defined As A Dogma At Trent, Theologian Admits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkvk3r2zPtE

John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”)

Reply: The cherry-picked Magisterium of Bobby Dimond will be decisively demonstrated. The video he cites (and made with his brother)  "John 3:5 Defined As A Dogma At Trent, Theologian Admits" is a slam dunk against MHFM. In it, Bobby cites theologian Cartechini in De Valore Notarum Theologicarum. Bobby praises the theological work (rightly) but says it "contains some problematic statements" (at 2:15-2:18 into the approx. 7:15 video). Bobby is incorrect that it is only to be found in Latin. It is also available in an Italian language edition, D'ALL OPINIONE AL DOMMA. 

Bobby tells us how the great Cartechini bears witness to St. John 3:5 and that it necessitates belief in baptism by water only. It's bye-bye BOD and BOB. Or is it? Bobby never mentions what the "problematic statements" are in the manual. The translation (let's see if Bobby can escape this one) in both Latin and Italian are as follows:

"...joining the Church is necessary for salvation and yet one can be saved even if one explicitly knows nothing about the Church; baptism is necessary for all and confession for those who have sinned mortally after baptism and yet by an act of contrition and love one remits present and original sin..."

(Tradibooks Edition, pgs. 69-70). That's theologian Cartechini teaching Baptism of Desire, folks. 

Wouldn't the very same theologian who "admits" St. John 3:5 has no exceptions to water also know that BOD is heretical? Now, was that heretical or was it just "an innocent mistake"? Better ask Bobby, he can discern the state of souls, past and present. If the manual of Cartechini is heretical, how can you trust anything it says?

1. Ask Bobby Dimond; he's the Magisterium and cannot be wrong.
2. Let Bobby get out his "handy-dandy Extraordinary Magisterium Checklist" containing snippets from Denzinger.
3. Bobby will tell you what parts of any given theological work (from manuals to catechisms) are heretical, erroneous, or dogmatically true, all dependent upon how the part in question comports with his private interpretation of those declarations of the Extraordinary Magisterium.  
4. If you think he's wrong, see #1 directly above and believe him or else you are a lying, no good, low-down, John 3:5 mocking, heretical dupe of Satan heading straight for Hell (and your mother wears army boots too, so there!)

While those of us who believe in the teaching of the Church on BOD and BOB are "liars" and "heretics," the great theologians and Doctors of the Church make "innocent mistakes, " despite the fact that they are approved by the Church precisely because of the excellence of their teachings and orthodoxy. No pope, no bishop, no one for hundreds of years caught and condemned these heretical teachings. They were even published in approved Catechisms distributed to the faithful worldwide without objection. Then came Leonard Feeney, and his spiritually sick theological descendants, Fred and Bobby Dimond. 

At 6:46 of the video, Bobby quotes theologian Ott. Another "problematic statement" appears in that manual:

Theologian Ott: "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation" (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 356).

On the same page:"In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood." Oops! Is Ott (a) heretical, (b) a theologian who makes "innocent mistakes" or (c) mentally unstable to the point he makes glaring contradictory statements on the same page? Better ask Bobby. 

Conclusion

I can't express how happy I am that Bobby Dimond came here and commented, allowing for a complete and total exposure of the Feeneyite sophistry. I give Bobby credit for reading my blog and hopefully learning things that, with the grace of God, will effectuate his conversion. Bobby and Fred really need our prayers, and they are always in my intentions. One of the reasons Fred and Bobby get into heresy is beautifully expressed by---theologian Cartechini:

"The purpose of theological systems is to coordinate already established truths and to prepare for the acquisition of new conclusions. For our domains often have several aspects that might seem contrary, and heresy consists precisely in denying one that it seems cannot be reconciled with the other."