Dimondites

 

Feeneyites is the name given to those who deny the dogma of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). They derive their name from the excommunicated Jesuit, Leonard Feeney (1897-1978). Feeney was surrounded by Modernists who gave a heretical meaning to BOD. According to them, every (or almost every) non-Catholic who died was in good faith and was saved by BOD. This was never the teaching of the Church.

In response, instead of giving a clear exposition of BOD and BOB, Feeney went to the heretical opposite error of denying they could save anyone, and taught that only the sacrament of baptism ("water baptism") could save someone. In 1953, Pope Pius XII solemnly excommunicated Feeney for heresy (not "disobedience" as his followers falsely declare).  Feeney claimed BOD confers sanctifying grace yet you cannot enter Heaven until water baptism. In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. 

Modern day Feeneites realize the illogical position and "improve" on it by claiming BOD does not justify. 

As with most heretics, the errors rarely stop at just one point of departure from the One True Faith. In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion as "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

I could go on about Feeney's creation of a cult consisting of "married nuns" and "married brothers" who raised their children "communally," contrary to both Divine Positive and Natural Law. However, my point has been made that from one heresy, more inevitably follow. Since Feeney began the crusade against Church teaching on BOD and BOB, his followers are rightfully called Feeneyites, as they are not Catholic; just as Lutherans are named after the heretical excommunicated priest they follow. 

(To read more about Leonard Feeney, please see my post "A Sickness Of Soul;"introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html). 

However, most (not all) Feeneyites today were introduced to the heresy by Fred and Bobby Dimond of "Most Holy Family Monastery" here in New York State. They claim to be "Benedictine brothers" and have followers who are nothing short of fanatical.  (My favorite definition of a "fanatic:" one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject). The followers mimic what Fred and Bobby say, write, and they adopt all their views in addition to the rejection of BOD and BOB. It is these other views which shall be the subject of my post. As I already stated above, heresy rarely stops at one point of departure with the Church. Fred, Bobby, and their followers all display a "sickness of soul" endemic among Feeneyites, as my friend Steve Speray once wrote. Perhaps it's time to give these Feeneyites a new moniker---Dimondites. 

The (Very Unimpressive) CV of Fred and Bobby Dimond

One would think that with so many fanatical followers, Fred and Bobby must have outstanding credentials. Nothing could be further from the truth. 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 education beyond high school, and possess no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and "damn to Hell" anyone who disagrees

• Claim to understand Church teaching on BOD better than Doctors of the Church, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori

• Have spread the Feeneyite 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 ( Leonard Feeney), an ersatz "hero." They never mention the cult he founded and the children he abused

• Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids

They are not exactly "theological giants," and were it not for gullible followers donating to them, they would probably be working the cash register at McDonald's (provided they didn't tell all the customers they're going to Hell). Now let's dive into their strange teachings on matters besides denial of BOD and BOB.

You Can Know With Certainty Who is in Hell

There's an old aphorism, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." If you take something out of the context in which it was written and hold it up as "proof" for a preconceived notion, you're not interested in the Truth, just validating your point; "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with the facts." This is the hallmark of Fred and Bobby Dimond. In their article Catholics May Not Pray For Deceased Non-Catholics, Fred and Bobby contort Church teaching. They begin with this general statement:

It’s a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  All who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  Therefore, prayers may not be offered for people who die as non-Catholics.  If a person was a non-Catholic or a heretic during life, unless there is evidence of a conversion to the true faith in the external forum, the person is considered to have died as he or she lived (i.e. as a non-Catholic and outside the Church).  Therefore prayers may not be offered for a person who, based on the last available evidence, was a non-Catholic or a heretic on the hope that there was a conversion in that person’s final days.  Prayers may only be offered for people who die with the true faith.  Here are some quotes that reiterate the Church’s teaching that Catholics may not pray for (or consider among the faithful departed) those who die as non-Catholics or without the true faith. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholics-may-not-pray-deceased-non-catholics/#.WYvioNQrKt_).

It is true that there is no salvation outside the One True Church and all non-Traditionalist Catholics who die as such go to Hell. The rest is woefully wrong. They claim that unless there is evidence that the person converted, prayers may not be offered in the hope that there was a conversion in the person's final days.

Let's see what the Church has to say:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law 
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). Obviously the Church does not give up hope in a last minute repentance/conversion, but Fred and Bobby do.

2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).

3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).

What proof did the Dimond brothers give for claiming Catholics can't pray for deceased non-Catholics? A quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5. “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers…” Yes, THE SAINTS do not pray for dead and unbelieving men because they know for certain who they are, and we do not (except for Judas Iscariot, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "...but the priesthood brings to them [i.e., evil clerics] in its train the same rewards the Apostleship brought to Judas--eternal perdition." pg. 213).

The other quotes from, e.g., Pope Gregory the Great, clearly mean prayers are not offered for non-Catholics publicly, because no one but God knows what happens between Him and a soul prior to death except by special revelation. We know the canonized saints are in Heaven; that is an infallible decree. We know Judas is in Hell. We know the Antichrist and the false prophet will go to Hell. For everyone else, we may hope they were saved by God in the last moments of life, being brought into the Church infused with faith and sanctifying grace, because nothing is impossible with God. Prayers said for them, if they did not convert, are not "wasted;" they will be used by God for another poor soul--the same as prayers for someone whom is now (unknown to us) in Heaven are never "wasted."

This also puts Fred and Bobby in a conundrum. The Code of Canon Law is infallible, but even if it were not, they have a difficult choice to make. The pope cannot teach heresy, even non-infallibly

.

(See my post introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/05/can-true-pope-teach-heresy.html).

 If Pope Benedict XV promulgated heresy in Canon Law (Canon 1241), then he could not be a true pope. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). Therefore, if praying for the dead who died outside the Church in the external forum is heresy, Pope Benedict XV was not a true pope. If he was a true pope, then Canon 1241 is not heretical, and the Dimond's teaching collapses. Which is it, Fred and Bobby? 

Calling Mary "Co-Redemptrix" is Heretical

The Dimonds do not state that calling Mary Co-Redemptix is heresy in the article found here: vaticancatholic.com/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix. 

However, that is the logical and necessary conclusion one must draw if the teaching and title derogates from the infallible teaching that Christ alone redeemed us. Thankfully, it does not contradict any dogma. It has not been defined that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, but there are many and weighty arguments for the privilege and title when rightfully understood. 

The Dimond brothers attack those who wish to honor Our Lady with the title Co-Redemptrix as heretics-in-fact because it (allegedly) contradicts the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. They write:

 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987) (Emphasis in original).

What the Diamonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

Also of note, Fred and Bobby cite to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine, and theologian Pohle in favor of their position. Isn't it interesting that approved theologians are only cited when Fred and Bobby seem to agree with them? (I say "seem to" because neither Bellarmine or Pohle thought the title/privilege contradicted Church dogma). Otherwise, citing to theologians is useless "because they are not infallible." Can you say "hypocrite"? But I digress.

What about the theologians and popes who spoke of Mary as having a role with Her Divine Son in the redemption of humanity? According to MHFM, There are a few non-infallible quotations that people bring forward to attempt to show that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.  The answer is that they are not infallible and they are simply wrong.  They cannot be defended. Yet if it contradicts dogma, it is heretical, and Fred and Bobby have another conundrum.

•  Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

•  Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

• Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

• On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

If calling Mary Co-Redemptrix goes against dogma, it means Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII were all false popes. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

When the Church has not settled a question and leaves it open to discussion among the theologians, Traditionalist Catholics are free to accept any answer the theologians offer as long as it is not censured by the Magisterium. Such is the case on whether the title Co-Redemptrix properly belongs to Mary. The strongest (and most numerous) arguments come down on the side favoring Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption.

Now that Fred and Bobby will cite theologians that suit them, let's move on to the next whacky teaching.

Modernist Theologians were Receiving Imprimaturs Before Vatican II

Besides claiming, "theologians are not infallible" followers of the Dimonds like to intone that the Modernist takeover of the Church "couldn't have just happened" in the 1960s, and will trace it back to the late 19th century. Besides, they argue, bishops and censors couldn't review all theological books, and Imprimaturs were being given out which should not have been. Hence, you cannot cite any approved theologians without them being called "Modernists." All are unreliable and full of error. 

First, let it be noted that not all approved theologians hold the same degree of authority. Doctors of the Church, have all their writings examined in the most minute detail for anything that might go against Church teaching, or even be perceived as such. The pope, exercising his full Apostolic Authority after the long investigation, declares the theologian a Doctor of the Church based on (a) the excellence of his teachings and (b) his unwavering orthodoxy on every point of theology. 

For example, the Sacred Penitentiary, in answer to a query of the Archbishop of Besancon, and dated July 5, 1831 (under Pope Gregory XVI) had this to say:

Question: May a professor of sacred theology safely hold and teach the opinions that Blessed Alphonsus Ligouri teaches in his moral theology?

Response of the Sacred Penitentiary: Yes, yet those who follow the opinions handed down by other approved authors should not be considered blameworthy. 

(The answer was approved by His Holiness on July 21, 1831).

Here's one of St. Alphonsus' teachings:

It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.(See Theologia Moralis, [1909] 3:96-7). 

Yet, Fred and Bobby say that St. Alphonsus "made a mistake." Apparently so did all the theologians who examined his works for years checking it for the slightest error, and Pope Gregory XVI who gave final approval and declared him a Doctor of the Church. The theologians at the Sacred Penitentiary also gave a wrong answer about his works, and Pope Gregory made another "mistake" in approving it. 

Moreover, the Sacred Penitentiary says opinions of other "approved authors" may be used. The term "author" used to describe a theologian, denotes the very best of the best--short of being a Doctor of the Church. These authors have, in addition to all the basic requirements to be a theologian, a full professorship at a Pontifical University, authorship of  a multi-volume manual in dogmatic or moral theology that is considered an outstanding contribution in its field, and  have it used in seminaries and universities throughout the world. The Church uses these authors to form Her priests, and their works are inspected by the hierarchy the world over (including the Roman Pontiff) to check that there are no errors. 

Therefore, while a theologian who just wrote one or two papers for a theology journal might "slip under the radar," there is no chance of an author being a Modernist writer disseminating heresy. While it is true that individual theologians are not infallible, theologians as a corporate body are protected from error, as they are part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The extraordinary Magisterium declared the UOM to be equally infallible during the Vatican Council of 1870. 

Theologian Scheeben teaches, 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.' 

(A Manual of Catholic Theology, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). 

The followers of Fred and Bobby will say, "You are using a Modernist theologian to prove theologians are not Modernist." The objection fails miserably. Scheeben was an author of the highest caliber and his works were endorsed and promoted by Pope Pius XI himself:

MATTHIAS JOSEPH SCHEEBEN (1835–1888) was a German priest and scholar whose theology points to the inner coherence of the Christian faith and its supernatural mysteries. Notable in his own time, Scheeben later received praise from Pope Pius XI, who in 1935 encouraged study of the late theologian’s works, reflecting: “The entire theology of Scheeben bears the stamp of a pious ascetical theology.” 

Carl Feckes, Scheeben's successor at the Cologne seminary, named him "the greatest Mariologist of our time." 

(See philpapers.org/rec/KOOOSP-3#:~:text=In%201935%2C%20during%20the%20centenary,much%20praised%2C%20but%20seldom%20read; and See also stpaulcenter.com/emmaus-academic/handbook-of-catholic-dogmatics-3; Emphasis mine)

If Scheeben was a Modernist heretic spreading error, and Pope Pius XI encouraged the study of those works, Pius would be spreading Modernist heresy and  be himself a heretic. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

Finally, Fred and Bobby (with no ecclesiastical education and training, and whose highest level of secular education is high school), found errors in the works of an approved author!  In an article entitled, The Revealing Heresies in Msgr. Van Noort's Pre-Vatican II Dogmatic Theology Manual, the theologian is attacked for his position on (what else?) "Outside the Church No Salvation." 

(See https://vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual/)

The flawed Dimonds write, Many supporters of BOD actually argue and believe that theology manuals and texts, if they were produced by ‘approved’ priests and/or bishops in ‘good standing’ prior to Vatican II, are necessarily safe or reflective of sound Catholic teaching.  They are quite wrong.  They don’t understand what the Magisterium is and what it is not, when it is exercised and when it is not.  Unless a theology manual is simply repeating what the Magisterium has already taught, the conclusions found in it are not protected or guaranteed by the Magisterium.  Moreover, the power of the Magisterium is not exercised when such works are approved by bishops, or even by popes in a non-solemn or universal way. Their proof? Their own ipse dixit since they reject the UOM. It has been amply demonstrated that Fred and Bobby are the ones who  don’t understand what the Magisterium is and what it is not, when it is exercised and when it is not. 

Their attack on theologian Van Noort:

VAN NOORT REJECTS AND REDEFINES THE TWO RELATED DOGMAS: 1) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION AND 2) WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH THERE IS NO SALVATION

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, p. 265: “From the matter previously discussed, it should be relatively easy both to explain and to defend that slogan – often misunderstood and bitterly complained against by non-Catholics – which the fathers of the Church and the Church itself take as an axiom: ‘outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation.’  The axiom should be strictly understood as referring to actual union with the visible Church; but its full and correct meaning is: anyone who by his own fault lives and dies outside the Church will definitely be damned.  That the axiom is understood by the Church only with that qualification is obvious from its clear teaching that no one will go to hell without serious guilt on his part.”

Here Van Noort states that the solemnly defined dogma, Outside the Church There is No Salvation, should be understood to mean that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved.  That is heresy and modernism.  The dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation does not teach that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” will not be saved.  Rather, it teaches that all who die outside the Church are not saved, and that all who die without the Catholic faith are not saved.  The Church has proclaimed this dogma from the Chair of St. Peter approximately seven different times.  The formulation is always the same.  Not once did the Church define that only someone outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved, as Van Noort declares.

What MHFM omits is Van Noort's citation to Pope Pius IX: 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, #7). 

MHFM tries to brush off Pope Pius IX by stating: The notion that all the dogmatic definitions on this matter [EENS] should be set aside, and that the entire issue hinges on non-universal, non-infallible (and misinterpreted) statements of Pope Pius IX, is absurd. There is no misinterpretation; Pope Pius IX made it clear that those who are invincibly ignorant, live honest lives by following the natural law, and ready to obey God can be saved --not by water baptism--but by "divine light and grace." God can enlighten their minds and infuse sanctifying grace bringing them within the Church before death. Moreover, all theologians interpreted his statements as saying such and he did nothing to stop them. Nor did Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Therefore, we have a Church that cannot teach according to the Dimonds. No one understood the real meaning (not even Pius IX himself and the five popes who followed). 

Van Noort even explains with two reasons why the words "by his own fault" are not usually explicitly added:

First, because the axiom is a penal sentence, and the notion of penalty by its very nature presupposes guilt. Secondly, because the axiom helps to inculcate the truth that by the ordinary decrees of God's Providence only the Church can lead one to salvation and consequently that anyone who is outside the Church, no matter how he got there, is there where salvation is per se unobtainable. (pg. 266). This was conveniently omitted by the heretics of MHFM. 

Theologian Salaverri explains this truth of being outside the Church "by one's own fault" thus: But adults because of their full use of reason, who have died without Baptism and lacking at least an implicit desire of belonging to the Church, in the present order of grace, de facto, are lacking such a desire not without their own fault and are damned, as Pius IX taught. For according to the teaching of St. Thomas [Aquinas]: "This pertains to divine providence that He gives to each one the things necessary to salvation, provided on his part he does not place an obstacle. For if someone, raised in a forest or among brute animals, were to follow the lead of natural reason in the search for good and flight from evil, it must be held for certain either that God will reveal to him by an internal revelation the things necessary to believe or will send to him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius" (Acts 10). (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pg. 451; Emphasis mine). 

Van Noort neither rejects nor distorts/redefines "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." As to the charge Van Noort rejects the Catholic faith for "supernatural" faith, it is without merit. The Dimonds criticize those like Bp. Sanborn and the late Fr. Cekada's position on ‘supernatural’ faith denies the dogma that ‘Catholic’ faith is what’s absolutely necessary for salvation. Pure ignorance from the Dimonds. The Catholic Faith alone has the property of supernaturality. According to theologian Rivas, The act of faith is supernatural...The Pelagians, by denying internal grace for salvific acts, thereby deny the supernaturality of the Act of Faith. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, pg. 303). The only act of faith that is supernatural is an act of Catholic Faith, for faith comes from God.

Suffice it to say, the Dimonds are clueless and Van Noort is brilliantly Catholic! I will not address all the other alleged heresies of Van Noort, as it is clear his opponents don't understand the topics upon which they write.

I will end this section with the most impressive CV of author Van Noort:

Gerard Van Noort (1861-1946) studied at Hageveld and Warmond. Following his ordination in 1884, he served as chaplain in Medemblik and Amsterdam. From 1892 to 1908 he was professor of dogmatic theology at the seminary of Warmond, and it was here that he completed his ten-volume manual of dogmatic theology, Tractatus apologetici et dogmatici (Leyden 1898–1908). It is a model of clarity and conciseness, with a judicious blend of positive and speculative theology. It is in use all over the world, and has gone through several editions. In 1908 Van Noort left seminary work to become a pastor in Amsterdam, and in 1926 he was named a canon in the cathedral chapter of Haarlem. He received a Roman doctorate honoris causa [papal approval] in 1930 and in 1934 Pius XI appointed him a domestic prelate. 

(See encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/van-noort-gerard). 

Nevertheless, no one found errors in Van Noort until Fred and Bobby looked it over. If that wasn't such a sad statement, it would be funny. 

Married Couples Must Have as Many Children as Physically Possible

Yes, Fred and Bobby think that to make use of the infertile period (sometimes called "Natural Family Planning" but which, more correctly, I shall deem "periodic abstinence" [PA]) by married couples is sinful contraception. The question I shall now address:

Is Periodic Continence The Same As Artificial Contraception and Thereby Evil?

Periodic Abstinence (or "PA" as above) is the practice of purposefully limiting the marital act to sterile periods. Feeneyites, and others who hold to the absurd idea that PA is the moral equivalent of contraception, fail to make various distinctions. First and foremost, they reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The unanimous teachings of the approved theologians is to be discarded, and only private interpretations of ex cathedra statements is to be believed. They fall under the condemnation of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors:

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #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.

The UOM is equally infallible to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, we are bound in conscience to believe e.g., teachings of papal encyclicals, decrees of Roman Congregations, etc., with reverential acceptance. Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter :

"But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

The Church has always held artificial contraception to be intrinsically evil. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine).

The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that the Church cannot give to Her members that which is evil or erroneous. Hence, if PA was equivalent to artificial contraception, it would indeed be against both the Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. The Church would be incapable of sanctioning PA if it were intrinsically evil. Yet, as will be shown below, the Church has sanctioned PA, therefore it is not the equivalent of artificial contraception, nor in any sense "intrinsically evil."

1. Three Times the Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary Approved PA
The Sacred Penitentiary, the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance, rendered three decisions on PA under three different popes.

March 2, 1853. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?"

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation."

This gives the lie to the Feeneyite who claimed Pope Pius IX condemned PA.

June 16, 1880. During the reign of Pope Leo XIII, two pertinent questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary:
1. Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?
2. Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism (i.e., "withdrawal") of her husband but cannot correct him; or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."

June 20, 1932. Under Pope Pius XI, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons."

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." [It reaffirmed the 1880 decision in full].

2. The Teachings of the approved theologians give the green light to PA
The decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary should end the matter. However, we also have the testimony of the approved theologians who teach in favor of PA. None of them were ever censured for their teachings. Had PA been against Natural and Divine positive Law, the popes would have an obligation to condemn those teachings and the theologians who taught them. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach and allows error to go unchecked? The Church would be allowing Her children to believe and practice something evil; but the Indefectibility of the Church will not allow such. Here is a sampling of some of the major approved theologians (authors) of the 20th century before Vatican II:

According to theologian Jone:
 "Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).

According to theologian Prummer:
"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:
"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original).

The primary theologian who drafted the monumental encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), which condemned artificial contraception, was Fr. Arthur Vermeersch. The encyclical was a response the the Anglican sect which became the first denomination calling itself "Christian" to allow artificial contraception among married couples. I mention Vermeersch because one of the biggest complaints by MHFM supporters against PA is that the intention and purpose of PA is the same as artificial contraception.

Let us remember that the intrinsic end of an action is that which tends towards it's very nature. (For example, almsgiving has the intrinsic purpose of giving relief to one in need). Extrinsic motives don't change the nature of an action. For example, someone might engage in the act of almsgiving to flaunt his wealth and to receive praise from people rather than caring for the poor. However, the nature of the act is unaffected--the poor do indeed obtain relief. (See e.g., theologian Prummer, Ibid, pg. 5).

Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?(1932), a catechism based on Casti Connubii, point out:
"As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains objectively directed towards its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (pg. 44; Emphasis mine)

Who better would understand the intent of the encyclical than the theologian who wrote it under the direction of Pope Pius XI? However, is it the purpose of marriage to have as many children as physically possible? In a word: No. This will be discussed in the next section.

3. The Practice of the Church
That the Church has not "defined" marriage as a Sacrament meant only and exclusively to be used as a vehicle by which the marital act must produce as many children as physically possible is proven by: (a) the fact that the Church does not prohibit couples past their fertile years from engaging in the marital act, and (b) She has never condemned or prohibited senior citizens (e.g., a 70 year old widower and a 68 year old widow) from getting married even though it is obvious the union cannot produce any children.

To those who object that married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible (usually citing St. Catherine of Sienna who was the 25th of 25 children), the Church teaches no such thing. Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62).

The proper principle is to use the sacrament of Matrimony as God intended; to bring the man and woman closer to each other and closer to Him; begetting children insofar as the couple may be able to do so under their circumstances in life.

Conclusion

This was a long but necessary post. The Dimond brothers have a whole host of errors they spread in addition to their denial of BOD and BOB. Their crazed followers will make the strangest comments, just to spread error. One of their followers commented that "Ozzy Osbourne is in Hell," on a post that never mention the late singer or anything even remotely related. (While I'm not optimistic about the fate of Osbourne who led a wicked life, without a special revelation from God, no one can say for certain he is damned). 

The Dimonds are the Westboro Baptists of Feeneyism. As the severity of errors surpasses that of most Feeneyites, we should start calling the heretics who follow them Dimondites.