Monday, August 12, 2019

More Feeneyite Follies

 The definition of insanity, so they say, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I must have had a momentary lapse of reason after my post two weeks ago on Feeneyites (those who deny Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood; so named after the excommunicated Jesuit priest, Fr. Leonard Feeney). One of the fanatical Twitter supporters of Fred and Bobby Dimond's "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM), replied to my weekly tweet I send out each Monday announcing my post. He wanted me to "finally answer his questions." I had stopped responding because communicating with a Feeneyite, in almost all cases, is as much an act of futility as trying to tell Jorge Bergoglio "what people believe actually matters." I tried to reason with him to no avail, and when I challenged him to debate me in a neutral forum, he would refuse.

I dislike the use of the word cult because it is so subject to abuse. It should not be used to identify false religions, unless they use any manner of physical, monetary, or psychological coercion to get people to join and/or prevent them from leaving. For this reason, I refer to the man-made religion of Vatican II as a sect. Scientology is an example of a cult. Whether or not MHFM is a cult I will leave up to the judgement of my readers. I will, however, note some disturbing characteristics I've noticed among MHFM followers:

They exhibit programmed conversation and mannerisms, mimicking the personal behavior of the Dimonds.


  • When I asked the aforementioned Twitter follower to read my post, he said he would not click on the link. They will not read anything that challenges their belief system. 
  • People who disagree with them are labeled "liars," and "heretics." 
  • If you point out an error they will simply respond that "it's not true" without any evidence to back up their claim (and after calling you a "liar"). 

 A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without the Dimonds' involvement.

  • They will tweet out screenshots of the MHFM website as if it were the Gospel. "It's Church teaching" they will tell you, and not what the Dimond brothers say. It's really no different from small Protestant sects which put up a website and claim "it's what the Bible says." Yes, but interpreted by whom? It's private judgement with Scripture, and the Dimonds do the same with Church teachings using the "plain meaning rule" I explained in my last post on the Feeneyites (July 29--See 
  • One MHFM follower on Twitter claimed that St Alphonsus Liguori "made a mistake" about Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). It was brought to his attention that Pope Gregory XVI declared the works of St. Alphonsus (one of the greatest Doctors of the Church) "free from the slightest error." To this, the MHFM supporter replied that the sublime saint did not have "the great grace of being able to read the book" of the Dimond brothers (!) To even suggest that a Doctor of the Church, one of the greatest theologians of all time along with Aquinas, needed to read a book written by two men born after Vatican II with no ecclesiastical training and no secular education above high school, would be funny if not so pathetic. The Dimond brothers "found his error" when two Vicars of Christ,  Pope Gregory XVI who canonized him and Pope Pius IX who declared him a Doctor of the Church, found none 
  • All their "arguments" (if you really want to call them by that appellation) are mere repetitions of what Fred and Bobby Dimond have decreed 
  • They reject Church teaching on periodic continence within marriage because that's what Fred and Bobby "teach" them
  • They have exalted praying 15 decades of the Rosary daily (a very laudable thing to do in itself) to the status of some sort of "requirement of salvation"
Bottom line: Extra Dimond Nulla Salus--Outside Fred and Bobby Dimond there is no salvation.

In this week's post, I'd like to address two points of contention that came up with the Feeneyite on Twitter. I would like to think this post will be read by MHFM supporters, but they won't read any "heretical" writings. They will not allow you to confuse them with the facts. That's why they will never debate on a neutral forum. If they did, it would become painfully apparent to the objective observer that their so-called arguments fall flat. Only in tweeting out snippets of information intended to sound erudite can they ever hope to make a "case." These tweets and threads are hard to follow and make checking the citations (when they have any) exceedingly difficult. When you point out a gaffe, they will never acknowledge they were wrong, they simply tweet out something else. This is not a formal debate, just an exchange of certain points of information at best. Don't engage them on Twitter or in any forum where arguments and information cannot be put forth in a clear and concise manner--it's a waste of your time. What follows are but two more Feeneyite follies exposed.

Unanimous Confusion Regarding Nomenclature
One of the points of contention was the inability of the Feeneyites to understand that, in theology, words don't have only a univocal meaning. Just as words in other disciplines have different meanings, so too in Catholic theology. For example, when we speak of "private" revelations, it does not mean that only one or two people saw the apparition. It means that it is not part of the Deposit of Revelation that ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in the year 100 A.D. Such apparitions, visions, not need to be believed. Therefore, even the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, witnessed by thousands of people, is still private revelation. 

One of the proofs that BOD and BOB were defined at Trent is that we have the unanimous consent of the theologians who teach both the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism with reference to Trent, and BOD/BOB; a sure sign that Trent taught BOD/BOB when it spoke of the necessity of Baptism "or the desire thereof."  My Feeneyite opponent had what he believed to be a defeater to my argument which would "prove" there was no unanimous consent of theologians. He cited to a text written by Fr. William Jurgens, in which he does seem to question the teaching on BOD and BOB. 

The upshot of his contention is that to be unanimous, every single approved theologian must teach the same thing, and if only one theologian disagrees...well, goodbye to unanimity. My opponent had two major problems. First, Jurgens is not an approved theologian or canonist. His doctorate was not in Sacred Theology or Canon Law, but in Ecclesiastical History. Therefore his contention that Jurgens was against BOD or BOB (even if true), is the mere opinion of an historian and not the teaching of an approved theologian or canonist. Second, universal does not mean numerical unanimity, but moral unanimity. He thinks of "universal" in terms of the Catholic Church Herself, where "catholic" means "universal." St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100 A.D.) used the word Catholic to mean "universal" to describe the Church (See Letter to the Smyrnaens). The Church is indeed Catholic in that Christ is universally present in the Church and that He has commissioned the Church to evangelize the world– "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." (St. Matthew 28:19).

Unanimous does not mean the same when we talk about unanimity among the approved theologians and Fathers of the Church. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):

When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required. 

The Feeneyites talk about the necessity of the universal and constant consent of the Fathers as spoken of at the Vatican Council (1869-1870), yet they once more fail to comprehend its meaning. Here is an example from the Vatican Council: 

The universal and constant tradition of the Church, as seen both in facts and in the teaching of the Fathers, as well as in the manner of acting and speaking adopted by many Councils, some of which were Ecumenical, teaches us that the judgments of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals are irreformable. (See 

Protestants jumped all over this by trying to show at least one Father of the Church in disagreement with papal infallibility (therefore "not universal"), or it was not so from antiquity (therefore not constant chronologically). Both the Protestants and Feeneyites get their terms wrong.  According to the eminent theologian of the Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, Cardinal Franzelin, universality means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality (moral unanimity) cannot be confirmed is it necessary to appeal to antiquity, and that appeal is not to show it was always held, but rather if it was ever held by the Church as certain.  (See On Divine Tradition, reprint of 1875, [2016], pgs. 417-423). 

An objection presented by my opponent was that since the Fathers of the Church believed that Baptized babies went to Hell (and suffered the least amount of pain), then the doctrine of Limbo must be wrong. Their contention that all Fathers believed in Hell for unbaptized infants is patently false. Theologian Ott notes that the Fathers of the East (he cites St Gregory Nazianzus) did not share the idea of St Augustine that unbaptized infants go to the fires of Hell. They taught that they received the pain of separation from God (poena damni), but not the inflicted pain of the senses by fire (poena sensus). This was the early conception of what became known as Limbo. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 114). Later on, especially under St. Thomas Aquinas, it was thought that perhaps unbaptized infants enjoyed some small amount of natural happiness. (See theologian Dyer, Limbo: Unsettled Question [1963]). Hence, the objection fails, 

The "Grace of Baptism"

 The second point of contention was the alleged "mistake" St. Alphonsus Liguori made (as well as the other theologians), that BOD does not remit the full temporal punishments due to sin as does the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, you are not receiving "the grace of Baptism" and BOD does not exist.

There is confusion on the meaning of the term "grace of Baptism." First, the Feeneyite objection will be set forth in a syllogistic form:

1. An adult who receives water baptism validly and who dies before committing a sin goes immediately to Heaven because the "grace of baptism" washes away all sin and all punishment due to sin.

2. An adult who receives baptism of desire does not have all punishment due to sin washed away.

3. Hence, an adult who receives baptism of desire is receiving something other than the "grace of baptism."

4. Therefore, an adult who receives baptism of desire, is not actually receiving the "grace of baptism," and will not go to Heaven were he to die before receiving water baptism.

It seems valid, but the problem lies in the term "grace of baptism" not being properly understood. The term applies to a bundle of gifts that the Sacrament alone gives to the recipient. Those gifts are:

  • The infusion of sanctifying grace (which washes away all sin, both Original and actual [mortal and venial])
  • The infusion of the three theological virtues (these actually never exist in a soul without sanctifying grace, but are distinct from sanctifying grace)
  • The removal of all temporal punishment for sin
  • The communication of the baptismal character on the soul which gives the soul a right to participate in the Church's sacramental life
  • incorporation into the Church (See Ott, supra, pgs. 350-360)
BOD does not communicate "the bundle" that is always communicated via the "grace of baptism."
BOD does communicate the first two items in the bundle, however, and as a consequence puts the recipient within the One True Church. So while it does not communicate "the grace of baptism," it communicates enough of the gifts included in the grace of baptism to justify.  This is because justification consists simply in the existence of God's life in the soul and the habituation of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.  While it is true that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism" technically considered, the person who receives BOD does receive the justifying effects of baptism.

In revisiting the Feeneyite objection above, #4 does not logically follow from numbers 1-3. They actually beg the question when they assert "BOD does not communicate the grace of baptism," because they are really saying, "BOD is not the same as being justified by water baptism. Water baptism is the only way to be justified. Therefore, BOD does not justify."  The whole point of dispute is whether water baptism (the sacrament) is the only way to be justified, and they gratuitously assume it to be true in making their objection to BOD.

Finally, there is the condemned proposition #31 of Michael du Bay (Condemned in the decree Ex omnibus afflicionibus of Pope St. Pius V on October 1, 1567) which states:

CONDEMNED: Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Timothy 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. 

So a catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity which necessitates the remission of sin. It says nothing about the remission of temporal punishments. BOB, on the other hand, is considered by theologians as removing all temporal punishments. This is most likely because death in the service of Christ is a kind of penance whereby those debts are remitted. Such a penitent type of willful surrender of one's life to Christ is different than a catechumen who has a heart attack or a car accident causing death prior to Baptism.

This ends my expose of the Feeneyite follies for awhile. There are just too many and it would require numerous posts, but I wanted to show the eerie mindset of the MHFM followers, and their egregious errors.

Note to my readers:
Rarely do I endorse any books on my blog. I make the exception this week for the incredible work of Dylan Fellows and Christopher Conlon entitled Contra Crawford: A Defense of Baptism of Desire and Periodic Continence. It is the greatest tome put out against the Feeneyites since Steven Speray's book Baptism of Desire or Blood (A Defense Defense in Brief Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam) published ten years ago. Crawford was a seminarian of the CMRI who espoused the errors of the Feeneyites as a deacon. Bishop Pivarunas refused to ordain him to the priesthood, and I've been told he received dubious orders elsewhere.

 Contra Crawford was written to refute his errors. The book is erudite yet eminently readable. These two gentlemen wrote a masterpiece that I can't recommend highly enough. I've had the pleasure of communicating with Dylan Fellows, and his keen insights have greatly helped me. He is a true Traditionalist gentlemen. You may obtain a copy by following the links below. May it be read far and wide in defense of Holy Mother Church!


  1. I believe you will find the following citation regarding St. Augustine and limbo useful:

    “The Church does not teach authoritatively anything save their privation of all supernatural beatitude. On this the Scripture is clear, as the Fathers unanimously testify: ‘Whilst, however,’ says Hinton, ‘the Fathers of the fourth century differed respecting the exact condition of infants dying unbaptized, they generally agreed that they missed of heaven.’

    Some recent writers, indulging in speculation, suppose that unbaptized infants enjoy natural happiness: an opinion which at first seems identical with that which St. Augustin brands as Pelagian heresy: ‘Let no one promise unbaptized children a middle place, as it were, of rest or happiness of any kind or anywhere, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven.’ This was said by him when answering Vicentius Victor, who taught that they could attain to the pardon of original sin, and be in paradise, as the penitent thief, although they could not reach the kingdom of heaven. This fanciful opinion, which promised such infants a kind of supernatural happiness, was justly rejected, and their state was called by the strong term of damnation, because they are totally deprived of all supernatural felicity. However, although occasionally dwelling in strong terms on their unhappy lot, in order utterly to explode the Pelagian error, St. Augustin does not venture to assert, that it may not be better for them to exist in that state of privation than not to exist at all: ‘Who can doubt,’ he says, ‘that unbaptized infants, who have only original sin, and are not burdened with sins of their own will, will be in the lightest condemnation of all? Which, as I am not able to define what or how great it will be, so I dare not say, that it would be better for them not to exist at all, than to exist in that state.’

    From the strong language which Augustin sometimes employs, some have thought that he held unbaptized infants to be with the devil, in hell-fire; which sentiment is put forward by Hinton, to throw odium on the doctrine of original sin, and of the necessity of baptism for salvation; but the comparison of the various passages in which he treats of the future state of unbaptized infants, warrants the mildest interpretation. St. Thomas of Aquin, his great admirer and disciple, explains him as only meaning utterly to exclude the Pelagian error, which ascribed to infants supernatural beatitude. St. Bonaventure understands him in the same manner; and the general sentiment of Catholic theologians harmonizes with this view, so that, as Sarpi himself confesses, the contrary tenet of the first Reformers narrowly escaped condemnation in the Council of Trent.”

    —A Treatise on Baptism by Archbishop Francis Kenrick, 2nd Ed (1852).

    1. @anon3:52,
      Phenomenal! Thank you for the excellent information!

      God Bless,


  2. "Bobby Dimond"? You mean "Mike Dimond"?

    1. To the best of my knowledge and belief, “Bros.” Michael and Peter Dimond were born Frederick and Robert (Although I’m uncertain which took the “religious name” of Peter and which took Michael.


  3. When I first was searching for Tradition the first website I came to was MHFM. I learned alot about Vatican II and the fake "Popes". However, when I came across BOD and BOB a red flag went up as it just didn't seem right to me. I then started reading other websites and found out that the red flag that went up concerning BOD BOB was right on. I also questioned the MHFM's daily 15 decade Rosary, among other things. I also didn't like the way they referred to nearly everybody as "heretics",etc. For a new person searching Tradition it is nearly impossible not to be directed to the MHFM website. Why some people get taken in by them and others don't is my question?


    1. @Joann,
      In my opinion, the followers of MHFM suffer the same “sickness of soul” that plagued Fr Leonard Feeney himself. Feeney was (rightfully) disturbed by the Modernism creeping up into the Church after being forcefully attacked and driven underground by Pope St Pius X. It manifested itself in Boston with the erroneous idea that we need not worry about converting others because they’ll receive “baptism of desire.”

      However, instead of seeking to restore the true doctrine, Feeney fell into an opposing error—BOD and BOB (when correctly understood) simply do not exist. He became more and more deranged in his beliefs, to the point where his “religious congregation” called the “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart Of Mary,” consisted of married couples living as “nuns” and “brothers” raising their children in a whacky commune with all the other people. Mom and Dad became like a big sister and a big brother. This is contrary to both natural and Divine positive Law. Children are to be raised by their parents as authoritative figures. This arrangement would probably be considered child abuse today in most jurisdictions.

      Feeney was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953, and was rehabilitated by Montini (Paul VI) without having to abjure his heresy. In the Vatican II sect, you can believe anything except the truth. The followers of MHFM were probably disillusioned by the “everyone goes to Heaven” idea that seems ubiquitous. Fred and Bobby give them the opposite error, which appeals to them.

      I’m especially concerned about millennials. Two young men contacted me via the comments and said they felt called to the Traditionalist priesthood. One went to the CMRI seminary only to be expelled when he decided to become EO. Then, within a couple of months he became a Neo-Nazi.

      The other young man gave up going to the seminary to become a Marxist who supports abortion and sodomite “rights.” I fear for the young and our future. Such extreme thinking is indicative of mental and societal imbalance.

      Everyone has seemingly forgotten the old aphorism, “In medio stat Veritas”—- in the middle lies the truth.

      God Bless,


    2. John Gregory,
      EO = Eastern Orthodox.


  4. From the Credo at Mass: "cujus regni non edit Feeneyites"

    "Of Whose kingdom there shall be no Feeneyites"

    1. Yes, Feeneyites are in serious error and as such must repent to be saved.


  5. The Demon brothers also condemn and declare heretical the idea that Mary is the Co-Redemptorix of salvation.

    I guess they have a problem with these popes:

    In his encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, Ad diem illum, Pope St. Pius X said, "...since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED by Jesus Christ IN THE WORK OF REDEMPTION, SHE MERITS FOR DE CONGRUO, in the language of theologians, WHAT JESUS CHRIST MERITS FOR US DE CONDIGNO"

    In 1918 Pope Benedict XV said to a Roman sodality from "Inter Sodalica": "As the Blessed Virgin Mary does not seem to participate in the public life of Jesus Christ, and then, suddenly appears at the stations of his cross, she is not there without divine intention. She suffers with her suffering and dying son, almost as if she would have died herself. For the salvation of mankind, she gave up her rights as the mother of her son and, in a sense, offered Christ's sacrifice to God the Father as far as she was permitted to do. Therefore, ONE CAN SAY, SHE REDEEMED WITH CHRIST THE HUMAN RACE."

    Pope Pius XII said this in Mystici Corporis: "It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love WERE INCLUDED IN THE HOLOCAUST. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT, THE MOTHER OF ALL HIS MEMBERS."

    They also have a long video (very convincing when they tell it) that all magician tricks are from the power of the devil. I guess they didn't bother to look at most of the you tube videos which explains how the tricks are done. It makes them look like total fools. It's true that some magicians are demonic in the way they behave and it's possible that some tricks might be from the devil but many from the video were explained naturally.


    1. Lee,
      The Dimonds have basically made up most of what they “teach.” They have gone so far as to call Protestant ministers James White “demon possessed” because the natural curvature of his bald head “looks like devil horns.” You can’t make this stuff up.

      God Bless,


    2. One Man asked them why they don't have
      Bp.Neal Webster
      give them seminary classes for 6 yrs & receive ordination?
      They never respond to questions regarding their utter lack of access to
      Holy Mass & Sacraments.
      Suspicious to say the least,Bros and Sisters.

    3. @Andrew,
      Suspicious indeed! Webster is a Feeneyite yet they never tell people it’s ok to go to him for the Mass and Sacraments. My guess is that they want to be the “saviors” and if a bishop was training/ordaining them, he would share the “limelight.”

      God Bless,


  6. Yes, MHFM are maybe 95% percent correct in what they preach, but it is the other 5% that is poisonous. The devil is truly in the details. And so many details:
    Besides their erroneous teachings and uncharitable attacks on anyone who questions them, there is that sad and scandalous legal wrangling with a plaintiff who was morally, though not technically, in the right. They bragged about their multi million dollar victory against this man, who lost most of what he had to them.
    Their "monastery" in NY, supposedly a place for Masses, retreat, and prayer, has been described by visitors as a center where there's all day basketball, little if any prayer, lots of TV, and one closet size room they call a Mass chapel (where Masses are never said). Clicking onto their very sophisticated websites (how on earth do they manage such an expense?) you are advised by the brothers to donate generously, because they are in dire poverty - "forced to go on social welfare".
    They also imitate The National Enquirer, displaying non-stop morbid and sensational video banners on their webpages about everything secular.

    Nope, they are not trustworthy sources for real Catholic information. Their false sede/traditionalism is a clever disguise to cover their self-promoting enterprise.

    1. Jannie,
      You correctly described MHFM. They get lots of money from donors to spread their errors while doing nothing that a Benedictine brother pre-V2 would recognize.

      Let everyone beware these men!!

      God Bless,


  7. MHFM needs lots of prayers!!


  8. Good stuff.

    Normal people have a vomiting point, but Feeneyites have an uncanny ability to run in dizzying circles ad infinitum. I also hesitate to designate anyone as a cultist, but I will say that at least some Feeneyites are very, very close to fitting the description. Encouraging dispassionate and clear reasoning among them is next to impossible. We can thank the sensationalist, tabloid-esque rhetoric of the Dimonds for that. At least to his credit, Feeney himself never wrote in such a tyrannical way.

    The Dimonds are a scourge on Catholic Tradition. They have channeled the absolute worst of traditionalist impulses (disobedience and rebelliousness) and distilled it into theological snake oil which they sell to mostly young, recently converted men. I know too many people who have completely burned out from relying on these charlatans, and some of them give up religion altogether.

    I would also add that, lest some think they have "some value" as "sedevacantists," they don't. Their arguments for sedevacantism are terrible, and I wouldn't blame anyone for rejecting their explanations. I myself was rather surprised, several years ago, to see that their case for sedevacantism was a case constructed on the premise that the post-conciliar claimants lacked the supernatural virtue of faith. Without getting into the weeds, supernatural virtue simply does not bear on membership. This is Bellarmine's great contribution to Catholic theology (or one of them anyways)-- he identified contra the Protestants that the criteria for membership (technically considered as a bond of visible union with the Church as a corporate body) HAD to be external if we wanted a visible Church. With Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi setting out the requirements for membership in external terms without any reference to the necessity of interior supernatural virtue, we can take Bellarmine's doctrine to the bank. Membership pertains to the external, not the internal.

    Point being, I think it's important to point out that it would be *too* generous to even say that the Dimond's have some good material on sedevacantism-- they don't. Their argument for it is terrible and I wouldn't fault anyone in the least for rejecting the sede vacante theory if they thought it was what the Dimonds say it is.

    1. Dylan,
      Thank you for commenting! You’ve made salient points. The Dimonds are just bad news—period. They hurt Traditionalists every way.
      Thanks again for the incredible book! Every Traditionalist should have a copy in his/her library!

      God Bless,


  9. This comment by Dylan is ridiculous. You are blind by dishonesty and hatred (and possibly envy) of the Dimonds. MHFM has almost certainly brought more people to the sedevacantist position than any other group by far. (Their material was greatly influential in bringing Novus Ordo Watch, Daily Catholic, Gerry Matatics, and many other people who now run sedevacantist outreaches to sedevacantism). Also, MHFM makes a variety of arguments for sedevacantism, including those that concern the Magisterium, Church membership, manifest heresy, etc. Your implication that their case is built solely on the virtue of faith being lost is a lie. They mention manifest heresy regularly. The V2 antipopes are public/manifest heretics and MHFM makes that point repeatedly. They have a whole video about how one must profess the true faith to be considered in the Church. They have a video about how Vatican II would violate the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church if the V2 antipopes were true popes, etc. The facts therefore prove that you are not credible.

    The contra Crawford book is also a dishonest piece of trash. As an example, it uses the “except through” misquote of Trent, even though that notorious mistranslation has been refuted for years.

    That heretical work also ignores some of the best arguments and recycles already-refuted ones. It doesn’t even address the fatal flaw in ‘BOD’: i.e. that it doesn’t grant the grace of baptism.

    Those heretical authors also ignore the blatant heresy held by the CMRI, etc. that souls can be saved in false religions. Their position is a direct contradiction of dogmatic pronouncements. They’re not Catholic. It’s a book written by faithless people of bad will.

    With regard to this article by Introibo, it contains many errors. The attempt to respond to the argument that 'BOD' doesn’t give the grace of regeneration/baptism, and therefore cannot justify, was terrible. Hey Introibo, try following this simple logic and not lying. I know it’s hard for you: Trent teaches that one must be born again to be justified. It also teaches that the grace of rebirth leaves a person in a state in which he or she would go straight to Heaven. That means that the grace of rebirth removes the temporal punishment due to sin. One must have that grace to be justified, according to Trent, but 'BOD' doesn’t give you that, as its proponents admit. Therefore it cannot justify. That refutes your position and your stupid response on this point.

    1. @anon4:15,
      The biggest help against the Feeneyites is when a Feeneyite, like you, exposes the irrationality of their position.

      It was carefully explained in my post how the “grace of baptism” is a bundle of gifts, not just one, and how the Feeneyites use circular reasoning. You also reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium for private interpretations of Church teaching. You “refuted” nothing of what I wrote, you merely gave your private interpretation of Trent which St Alphonsus did not share. I guess he was “too stupid” to understand what Trent really meant. He taught that BOD does not need to remit all temporal punishment as does the Sacrament. Pope Gregory XVI who declared his works “free from the slightest error” and as Vicar Of Christ never picked up on his error. Pope Pius IX who declared him a Doctor Of The Church didn’t catch his “mistake.”

      No, it took two self-proclaimed “Benedictines” born in the 1970s with no Ecclesiastical training and no secular education above high school to “discover a mistake” that one of the greatest minds of the Church made and which the Vicar Of Christ couldn’t discern. Yeah. Right. Sure. Makes perfect sense!!

      Just like what I wrote above you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a “liar,” unless it’s a pope or Doctor Of The Church, in which case it’s a mistake, and neither heresy nor a lie.

      Bobby and Fred did NOTHING to bring Mr. Derksen Of NOW or the late Michael Cain Of Daily Catholic to the Sedevacantist position. Nor did they influence me (Deo gratias!) Yes, I knew Mr. Cain personally.

      BOB does remit all temporal punishment. Do you believe in that? And isn’t BOB just another form of BOD in the sense you DESIRE to be united with Christ and die for His sake?

      To the “misquote” Of Trent, which LATIN SCHOLARS declared it a mistaken translation? Which LINGUISTIC SCHOLARS declared it such? (I notice the sound of crickets!)

      Your citations are not to approved theologians or canonists but to the Dimonds’ website.


      For that I thank you! If you ever want to debate in a neutral forum I’d love to do so, but even the Dimonds know how ridiculous they would look, and every Feeneyite runs away.

      I’ll pray that you escape the Feeneyite Follies.


    2. It is very difficult for a new person searching Tradition/Sedevacantism not to come into contact with the dreadful Dimonds. Their website is all over the internet when searching for Tradition/Sedevacantism. It is a shame that many people's first contact is MHFM. However, a good dose of common sense as well as discernment is needed when dealing with the dreadful and deceived Dimonds.


  10. Spectacular article! I just want to make sure that you have only written two on this topic recently as I don't want to miss any.

    1. John Gregory,
      This is not recent but I think you’d like reading it

      God Bless,


    2. Thank you my friend!

  11. I think Bod/Bob is a "sacred cow" of the traditional clergy. It is along the lines of evolution and vaccines in the scientific community. No questions and no dissent is allowed. If you do, like Crawford, you are kicked out of the seminary. So,I think that even though many people think it's crazy, not supported by the facts, and illogical, they keep their mouths shut,so they aren't banished from the only game in town.

    It's really hypocritical of the clergy to expect R&R and NO types to "do their homework" and question the theologians who brought us Vatican II, while simply responding to all questions concerning BOD/BOB "the theologians have spoken ".

    I have no horse in this race, but an interest in the truth, and so I read about it in Contra Crawford, the Dimonds, Fr. Feeney,the CMRI articles, Fr. Wathen and Fr. Mueller. From this reading I would say that the traditional clergy completely ignore dogmas like "Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion,but that even heretics may attain eternal life." Pope Gregory XVI.
    They ignore Christ's words like "He who does not believe will be condemned." They ignore the Council of Trent's Can. 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that Baptism (the sacrament), is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn.3:5): let him be anathema." BOD is not a sacrament. Since only water baptism is the sacrament, Pope Paul is definitely saying that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, ex cathedral states, "Besides,one baptism,..., which celebrated in water ... " he directly asserts that there is only one baptism and it's celebrated in water. It doesn't get any clearer than that. It's just ignored, as if it was never defined in such a manner. I don't understand why they just ignore these definitions and instead just say the theologians must have known about these things and therefore we aren't going to address them.

    The apostle Paul said if he brought a teaching not in alignment with what was taught previously,then reject him. He also was a "type" . He was converted by Christ on the road to Damascus and was baptized. Christ didn't just let Paul keep persecuting Him and at the end of his life, say good job, I know you were invincibly ignorant of me and were trying to do My will, here's a BOD, now you are saved. Instead, He sees Paul's heart and converts him, and Paul is baptized with water into the Catholic religion. 2 Corinthians 4:3 "And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of unbelevers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,who is the image of God, should not shine into them." God sees and knows everything. He made and watches over us all. He gives us all the graces and we need to save out souls. I believe God will not condemn to hell anyone who doesn't belong there. I think we need to pray and make as many sacrifices as we can to save out souls and the souls of others.

    This issue is devisive. The traditional clergy should review the evidence based on the facts and dogmatic statements of the Church and not just what "theologians" said. There is a contradiction.

    For the record,I am not a Dimondnite nor Feeneyite, but I do think that the Dimonds are correct in this. I don't think that one can even be justified without water baptism. Your idea that where there is partial (2/5th) of what is needed for baptism, is taught nowhere and sounds like the NO idea of partial communion of separated communities and the while subsist idea.

    I also think that until we as traditional Catholics assert strongly that there is no salvation outside the Church, then there cannot be a Restoration.

    1. @anon11:17
      You most certainly do have a horse in this race, the "Feeneyite Foal." You claim not to be a Feeneyite, yet that's exactly what you are; a person who denies BOD and BOB. It is not a "sacred cow"--it is a truth of the Catholic Faith defined by both the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium at Trent. Imagine if I were to say, "I'm not Eastern Schismatic, but I do think Photius was right on this issue of Filioque and papal primacy."

      This is not a question up for discussion like the Una Cum Mass. The Church settled it.

      You claim: "It's really hypocritical of the clergy to expect R&R and NO types to "do their homework" and question the theologians who brought us Vatican II, while simply responding to all questions concerning BOD/BOB "the theologians have spoken ".

      Reply: It's not hypocritical at all. Notice the words "approved" always come before theologians who are cited. The reason? All the theologians at V2 were censured under Pope Pius XII and rehabilitated by Roncalli, who was not the pope. Hence, Kung, Ratzinger, etc. are NOT approved theologians.

      You cite Pope Gregory XVI and I'm glad you did. He said that the works of the great Saint and Doctor of the Church, Alphonsus Liguori, were free from "even the slightest error." St. Alphonsus taught BOTH the absolute necessity of water Baptism AND BOD/BOB. St. Thomas Aquinas taught both BOD and BOB. I guess they ignored Christ's words and didn't understand Church dogmas like Fred, Bobby and you. If only they could have been enlightened by the Dimonds!!

      Finally, the "kicker" of your comment:
      "I also think that until we as traditional Catholics assert strongly that there is no salvation outside the Church, then there cannot be a Restoration."

      NO ONE who believes in BOD/BOB denies Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salaus. Certainly not St Alphonsus, St Thomas Aquinas, and the approved theologians. BOD and BOB are alternate ways to enter the Church, not exceptions to belonging to Her!

      St Alphonsus taught that BOD only conveyed 2 of the five graces conatined in the bundle that is sacramental baptism, and that it suffices for salvation. Pope Gregory XVI declared his works free of error. Therefore, your contention that "Your idea that where there is partial (2/5th) of what is needed for baptism, is taught nowhere and sounds like the NO idea of partial communion of separated communities and the while subsist idea." is manifestly absurd and refuted.

      I'll be praying for your conversion.


  12. I actually don't have a horse in this race. You are just one of the few people who actually bothers to answer. I didn't know anything about BOD/BOB so I was totally objective in my reading during which I noticed ex cathedra Council of Trent statements contradicting the BOD/BOB narrative, are ignored and not addressed. There are many such statements like Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, #5, ex cathedra: If anyone denies that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ...For , in those who are born again, there is nothing God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; but putting off the old man, and putting on the new,...are made innocent,immaculate,pure,guiltless,and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, ..... ;in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven. " The theologians who taught BOD and BOB indicate that the temporal punishment due to sin is not removed by BOD/BOB, so according to the Council of Trent, they do not have the grace of Baptism, that of being " born again ' and therefore do not immediately attain eternal life. The point being that there is a defined 'grace' of Baptism, and BOD/BOB do not confer it. Continuing on, The Council of Florence, in Exultate Deo, Nov.22,1439: "Holy Baptism, which is the gateway to eternal life..The effect of the sacrament is the remission of every fault,...and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptised no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God."

    It's also a dogma that one must be born again in order to be justified. Council of Trent,Sess.6, Chap.3" But though he died for all,yet all do not receive the benefit of His death,but those only to whom the merit of His passion are communicated; because as truly ...when they are conceived, injustice as their own,so UNLESS they were BORN AGAIN in Christ, they would NEVER be justified, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them".
    So, the Council of Trent says you cannot even be in the state of grace (justification) without being born again. As Jesus says " Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,...unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Finally, Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: "Besides, only one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all, just as one God and one faith, which celebrated in water ...we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children." This is specifically stating that there is only one baptism and it regenerates all baptized in Christ. BOD/BOB do not regenerate and therefore are not part of this one baptism.

    These definitions, which are dogmatic, are just ignored. That is why I have an issue with this.

    Finally, despite what Pope St.Gregory XVII said about St.Alphonses's works, I think he would agree as would St. Alphonses himself, that if they contradicted dogmas not to follow them. Pope Alexander VIII said " When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established by Augustine,he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. "- condemned,Errors of the Jansenists,Dec. 7,1690.

    1. @anon7:36
      You are a Feeneyite pretending not to be one. You ignore the fact that THE CHURCH interprets Her decrees, not you or the heretical “monks” from upstate NY.

      St Alphonsus did not ignore ANY of those decrees, especially Trent. He lived AFTER TRENT and continued to teach both BOD and BOB just like Aquinas who lived BEFORE TRENT.

      Furthermore, the decree of Pope Alexander does not apply because the works of St Alphonsus were approved BY THE POPE and were not appealed to against the pope! Not just Pope Gregory but also Pope Pius IX who scrutinized his works and also found them free from error before proclaiming him a Doctor Of The Church. You are now claiming by logical implication that Pope Gregory And Pius approved heresy. Then you’d need to become a Vacancy Pusher, and declare both popes to have fallen from the pontificate. Your contention that “no one addressed” these decrees in disingenuous at best. It was addressed by all the approved theologians, doctors of the Church, and the popes who approved their works.


  13. You say that (BOD/BOB) are alternative ways of entering the Church. They shouldn't call them baptisms, which they are not. They are made up. I don't know who coined them. As I said before, the traditional bishops shouldn't try to bind the faithful to something that contradicts other defined dogmas regardless of what approved theologians said. I think they should look directly at the Council of Trent documents on Baptism, Justification, the Sacraments as well as other documents like the ones I mentioned and not just go by the theologians. They are not infallible.
    I don't envy their position because I am sure it's very difficult, but I think that the errors discussed are possible,especially when the Church is being attacked for not being a "nice guy" from within from without by it's enemy. I would follow the dogmatic Council of Trent teaching in this case.

    1. You follow yourself, just like Feeney, Fred, and Bobby. Why not just “read the Bible” for yourself as well? That’s what Protestants do. Protestants reject the approved theologians as do Jansenists and Modernists. Not good company in which to find yourself.

      You reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as defined at the Vatican Council Of 1870. BOD and BOB were discussed by the Fathers of the Church. Did they “make it up”? Did all those Doctors and popes “make it up”?

      You are NOT Catholic. You believe in a Church that cannot teach and promotes error and evil. That is not the Catholic Church. God have mercy on you and all Feeneyites that you may find your way into the Church.


  14. What most Feeneyites have in common is an extreme lack of the virtue of docility (readiness to learn). This is the most insidious aspect of Feeneyism, in my opinion. It is a direct attack on docility, and consequently prudence, which docility is an integral part of. The more a person clings to Feeneyism, the more it tears out whatever docility they had, and replaces it with a vicious (pertaining to vice) non-docility - hostility.

    But I also think Feeneyism's growth is a result of the modern levels of evil and corruption among officials and experts in every aspect of life these days. The existence of it (corruption, etc.) has become increasingly more apparent in society over the last sixty years, and nobody is more aware of this than traditional Catholics. This state of the world has required so much caution, especially among Catholics, that many have forgotten or completely abandoned docility. Upon hearing the word, "docility", it seems it would be the first inclination of many to think it was a vice to be avoided. But who can blame them when everywhere we turn experts or officials would betray us or lead us astray? Docility requires trust, but after the last sixty years it seems like caution would tell us to trust no one, especially the experts or learned. To many traditional Catholics, it seems exercising extreme caution, extreme skepticism, and total distrust is the surest way we can know we are holding the true faith. The more they distrust, the more intense their skepticism, and the more evil conspiracies and corruption they can uncover, the more confidence they have in their own faith. Though not limited to it, Feeneyism is the perfect manifestation and result of this traditional Catholic skepticism. Instead of applying it to the last sixty years, they extend it to all of tradition. The result is that docility toward tradition is replaced by hostility toward it.

    1. Caillin,
      An excellent observation!

      God Bless,


  15. This is my last post. I think the direction of this discussion is turning nasty, and that is not my intent or desire.

    The point of Pope Alexander's quote is that Augustine wasn't infallible and neither was St. Alphonsus. People (even very saintly ones) make mistakes and don't consider every single document in every decision they make. That is why Jesus conferred that privilege (infallibility) to the Pope alone and that's why I addressed excathedra documents from the Council of Trent. That's hardly a bad thing to do as a Catholic. Blind obedience without considering the dogmatic statements, was probably one factor in bringing us to this crisis. No one wants to question anything, even if it is contrary to defined dogmas. St. Paul specifically warned us against this;"if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8

    Pope Pius XII, was surrounded by modernists. According to Vatican II Exposed, the new traditional book by CMRI clergy, Cardinal Spellman who was considered a traditionalist, but who for love of power and homosexual inclinations, acted like a Modernist. Another turncoat, who was considered so pious with his daily Holy Hour, who had no censure and who had millions of followers, was Archbishop Sheen, (converted after Vatican II, or a crypto -modernist?). Cardinal Bea, Pope Pius XII's personal confessor, and considered a biblical scholar, questioned the authenticity of the Scriptures. This caused doubts by many seminarians who later became priests. They thought they were following a great traditional scholar.

    Pope Pius XII, and the Catholic Church were bamboozled by these men and many others. Many of these men acted like traditionalist but were in reality crypto -modernists. According to the same source, sadly, even the cardinals and bishops who opposed modernism had actions that were inconsistent, vocally opposing the changes but still voting with the majority. In other words, they caved. Given the nature of the situation, it is also possible that leading up to Vatican II, theologians- even approved ones - may have had less than stellar motives and possibly would not hold their ground on something so unpopular as exclusive salvation in the Church. An example of go along to get along. Given this, is it so much to ask traditional bishops to look at the Council of Trent's excathedra documents considering that to say that there are other ways to be saved without being reborn is contradicting scripture and the Church's dogmatic teaching?

    Titus 3:5 - "He saved us, ... by the washing of regeneration..."
    1 Peter 1:3-4 - " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, he has caused us to be born an inheritance that is imperishable,... "
    As Jesus said: "Wonder not, that I said to thee, you MUST BE BORN AGAIN."

    1. Your Feeneyite ways are sad. Feeneyite rule number one: Reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. Rule number two: Only accept your own private interpretations of ex cathedra decrees. What brought the crisis was people like you.

      I have addressed every single objection in my prior post “Feeneyite Follies.”

      To the objection that approved theologians are not infallible;

      While as individuals they are not, they are infallible as a corporate body, as explained by 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, Dogmatic Theology , pg. 83)

      The CMRI is staunchly Traditionalist and rejects the Feeneyites, yet you use one of their books to try and “prove” your heresy.

      (Continued below)

    2. Here is infallible proof of BOD and BOB:
      Canon 737 states, "Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation..."

      This should end any doubt as to how the Church understands Trent's Canon IV on Baptism. However, Canon 1239, section 2 delivers another crushing blow:

      Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.
      Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See The Sacred Canons, [1951], pg. 493).
      This is devastating to the cause of Fred and Bobby, so they must deny that Canon Law is infallible. First, it is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

      Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115)
      Feeneyites will make two objections: (1) The Code is not universal since it only applies to the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and (2) Canon 1 "proves" it's not universal.

      In response to the first objection, it is sheer ignorance of Canon Law. According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: "A general [universal] law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances." (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory. The 1917 Code is therefore universal.

      In response to the second objection, Canon 1 does state that the Code as a general rule does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that apply to all Rites: (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See Ibid, pg. 16).

      To summarize:

      Universal disciplinary laws are infallible
      the 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law by the Church's own definition
      It also applies to all Rites when it expresses a Divine Truth and/or declares something is Divine Law
      Canon 737 teaches a Divine truth as to what is necessary to salvation
      Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth
      BOB and BOD are therefore infallibly taught by the 1917 Code of Canon Law
      In addition, all Eastern (Oriental) Rites have their own Canons which mirror both 737 and 1239, making the definitive case that it is a universal disciplinary law no matter how you approach it. The Code was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV, a true pope insuring that the Code is infallible. It teaches BOD and BOB.

      You are a Feeneyite. Praying for your conversion.


  16. I was raised in novos ordo, and became sedevacantist after putting on Brown Scapular. Baptism of desire? What are all these furious, long arguments? I went to sede clergy's writngs and accepted BOD.
    btw, this is great article. Contra Crawford helps me REASON like a Catholic... i have long way to go, as BUGNINI was Dean of my formation

  17. They do call you liar very early on. Call sede clergy Heretics. They aren't just to sede clergy. I've seen sede clergy debate others... if i was on other side, I'd sue for terms!!! John

  18. Great article.

    1. The use of the word "liar"

    2. Their practice of "tweet[ing] out screenshots of the MHFM website as if it were the Gospel"

    All, **LITERALLY ALL** Feeneyites I debated with in Twitter do these two things. Literally all of them. No exaggeration.

    It's still a mystery to me why they all act in the same way. But it's very amusing.

    Question: I affirmed that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism" technically considered.

    But I said that though the remission of temporal punishment is an effect of the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not an effect of the grace of Baptism. I thought that the grace of Baptism simple meant the sanctifying grace which which washes away all sin. The rest are effects of the sacrament, but not of its grace. Looks like I was wrong. Was I?

    1. Correction: I did not say that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism"

    2. @anon1:15
      The "grace of baptism" is a bundle of gifts as I explained in this post. It is not just sanctifying grace received understood in the broad sense of "grace" as a gift of God. With careful definition and use of terminology, what you said can be considered orthodox.

      God Bless,