The Dimonds, Ensoulment, And Baptism Of Desire

 

To My Readers: This week's post is co-authored by my good friend, Mr. Steven Speray. I highly recommend his blog Catholicism in a Nutshell (stevensperay.wordpress.com). I thank Steve for his co-authorship which cuts my time spent writing/researching considerably while maintaining what I hope you will agree is a high quality post. The post is attributable to us both equally. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Dimonds, Ensoulment, and Baptism of Desire (BOD)

By Steven Speray and Introibo

The ersatz Benedictine monastery known as The Most Holy Family Monastery, run by the malevolent heretics, Fred and Bobby Dimond, have made another misleading and heretical video entitled: John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire." ). 

(See endtimes.video/ensoulment-1917-code-canon-law-infallibility). 

The video once more exposes the Dimonds to be not only heretics, but the very epithet they enjoy calling others---liars. Fred and Bobby remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses (JW). The JWs are most well-known by their firm opposition to blood transfusions, even when someone's life depends on such. The Watchtower Society, which are the leaders of JWs, will never bend on this teaching, since they fear a total loss of credibility, and many of their adherents will most surely leave the sect. Likewise, Fred and Bobby have pretended to be Traditionalist Catholics while championing---at all costs--- the Feeneyite heresy which denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB).  

While claiming that Traditionalist Catholics don't understand the Magisterium and when infallibility applies, the Dimonds have amply demonstrated they are the ones who are either clueless or purposely deceptive. The video begins with a discussion of ensoulment (i.e., when does God create and infuse the soul into the human body). The crux of their argument runs thus:

• The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) teaches delayed ensoulment.
• The Roman Ritual provides that an unborn baby[deformed, abnormal fetuses] that is delivered and looks "monstrous" may be denied baptism unless there is doubt about it not being human and ensouled
• The 1917 Code of Canon Law requires such a fetus to be baptized conditionally
• The Code corrected past practice
• Yet, if past practice was infallible by the UOM, that means Canon Law--and its teaching on BOD--is not infallible. It teaches heresy just as in the case of the monstrous fetuses

Why isn't Canon Law infallible? They argue:

• The Church is infallible in truly universal disciplinary laws
• However, in order to be universal it must apply to each and every Catholic without exception
• Canon 1 of the 1917 Code limits its scope to the Latin Rite alone, therefore it is not universal since it does not include the Eastern (or "Oriental") Rites. It also states that only things apply to the Oriental Rites are those which do so " by their nature." That phrase references things that are already dogma and has binding force "by their nature"
• Therefore, Canon Law is not infallible, and teaches the heresy of BOD

Each of their errors will be examined below.

The UOM Does Not Teach Delayed Ensoulment

What, exactly, is ensoulment? It is the moment at which God infuses the rational soul into the developing human being in the womb. There are those theologians who believe in immediate animation, (the soul is infused at the first moment of biological fertilization), and those who teach delayed animation (the soul is infused at some point after fertilization, but prior to birth). According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. 

The Church has never defined, by the extraordinary or Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM), when ensoulment takes place. Fred and Bobby rely on a citation to St. Alphonsus Liguori in which he claimed delayed ensoulment "...is universally accepted that the soul is not infused into the body until the latter is formed..." (From Theologia Moralis). 

Let's remember what constitutes the UOM:

The UOM is explained according to theologian Scheeben: The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. (See Tuas Libenter [1863], DZ 1683; Emphasis mine).

Now, if at any time all theologians taught delayed ensoulment as belonging to the Faith, it would be a dogma. Well, St. Alphonsus claimed it was "universally accepted" at his time, so does that not prove it? That it was universally held by scientists and medical doctors of the time CONCEDED; that it was held universally by all theologians at the time of St. Alphonsus, DENIED. St. Alphonsus holds delayed animation as certain. However, he writes: We must first state proposition 35 of those condemned by Pope Innocent XI, which said: "It seems probable that every fetus, so long as it is in utero, lacks a rational soul and then first begins to have the same when it is born; and consequently homicide is not committed in any abortion." Conversely, some [theologians] wrongly said that the fetus in the first instant in which it is conceived is animated... (See Theologia Moralis, 2:435). Pope Innocent XI (died 1689) was within 100 years of St. Alphonsus (died 1787) with no major theological developments, so there was disagreement as to the theology of ensoulment. 

To those who would assert otherwise, theologian McCarthy teaches:

We add here, to forestall an objection, that even if it were proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that, for a period of time after conception, the human fetus, while biologically vital, is not endowed with a rational soul, it would still remain true that the direct abortion of this non-animated fetus, if there be such, would be intrinsically wrong and forbidden by the law of nature. We consider that the weight of probability is in favor of the theory of immediate animation. Even those who take the other view will at least admit that their theory of mediate animation is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, that the fetus may [Emphasis on the word "may" in original] be animated from the moment of conception. (See Problems in Theology, Volume II: The Commandments, [1958], pg. 141; Emphasis mine except where noted). 

Hence, if delayed ensoulment had ever been decided, theologian McCarthy wouldn't be calling it a "theory" it would be settled dogma. Nevertheless, even if, ad arguendo, delayed ("mediate")animation was dogma by reason of the UOM--it doesn't help the case of Fred and Bobby Dimond one bit, as will be explained later in this post. N.B. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception settles nothing for as theologian Carol writes in 1957:

At precisely what stage of fetal development the soul is created and infused by God has always provided theologians with material for subtle discussion, but modern writers [theologians] commonly favor the opinion that it takes place at the very first moment of fecundation. The definition of the Immaculate Conception offers no intimation as to the official teaching of the Church on the point.   

(See Mariology, [1957], 2:120). Further proof that the time of ensoulment was never defined by the UOM. 

The Roman Ritual and 1917 Code of Canon Law

Fred and Bobby cite the Roman Ritual of 1614 regarding baptizing a deformed fetus:

A monster that fails to exhibit a human appearance ought not to be baptized, but if there is any doubt about this, let it be baptized under the following condition, 'If you are human...'

 Next, they cite canonist Woywood:

...the Canon [748] about the misformed fetus is likewise taken from that source [Roman Ritual]. Here the Code corrects the Ritual, which distinguished between 'monstra' that have a human form and those that do not have that form. It is generally admitted today that a woman can give birth to no other than a human being, however deformed that infant may be, even to the extent of resembling an animal rather than a human being. A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1957, pp. 376-377

Fred and Bobby opine that this is a change not in discipline but in faith because it deals with when to baptize a fetus, and therefore the time of ensoulment must be immediate. Let's see what Canon 748 actually says:

Canon 748. Deformed or abnormal fetuses should be baptized at least under condition; if there is doubt as to whether there is one or several humans, one should be baptized absolutely, the others under condition. (Emphasis mine)

The Code does not "correct" the Ritual in the sense that it was wrong, but to bring it in line with the (now majority) theological opinion of immediate animation and takes the safer course. 

The Ritual said if there was "ANY" doubt as to human form, the fetus is baptized conditionally. The Code wants all CONDITIONALLY baptized in all cases to be safe. If it were a change in belief (teaching immediate animation) the baptism would need to be done absolutely, not conditionally.

The Canon is merely disciplinary, and even if delayed (mediate) animation were infallible by reason of the UOM, it changes nothing, other than taking a safer course. Not all theologians who taught delayed animation were unanimous on 40 days for a male soul and 80 days for a female. St. Alphonsus (cited above) names theologians who taught different times. The Dimonds "argument" stands firmly refuted.

What Constitutes a Universal Disciplinary Law?

Fred and Bobby think that to be "truly universal" a disciplinary law it must apply to "each and every Catholic" without exception to be infallible. Is this true? 

1. The Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws.

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; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from Her divine mission, which would be impossible."

(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258; Emphasis mine)

Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See Mirari Vos, para. #9; Emphasis mine).

Liturgical laws are therefore covered by the Church's infallibility. However, if what Fred and Bobby say is true, there were never any universal disciplinary laws concerning the liturgy (nor could there be). There has never been a liturgical law that applies in all Rites, since there are many different Rites with different liturgies. The Roman Rite (Latin Rite) liturgical laws do not apply to the Maronite Rite, or any Oriental Rite. The converse is also true. So why would liturgical laws be specifically mentioned as protected by infallibility, when (as per Fred and Bobby) they don't apply to all Rites? 

Answer: 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.

2. The Ultimate stake through the heart of Fred and Bobby's "Argument."

Fred and Bobby claim Canon 1 of the Code makes it clear that it is not "universal" since it does not bind the Eastern (Oriental) Rites. That was just refuted. Canon 1 states:

Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental. (Emphasis mine). 

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

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

Fred and Bobby get it all wrong! No surprise there. Far from being "stumped" by their "argument," the refutation was very simple and straightforward. The video goes on to tell falsehoods about Mario Derksen of Novus Ordo Watch (highly recommended website) and other nonsense. Indeed, it is Fred and Bobby Dimond who don't understand the Magisterium and application of infallibility.

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

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

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

• The UOM never at any point taught delayed ensoulment. It is undecided by the Church.

• Even if delayed animation were decided, it does nothing to help the Dimond's argument. The Code merely made a disciplinary change to bring it more in line with the now majority opinion, and take a safer course. This would be the case even if delayed ensoulment were true, since the exact time of ensoulment was never agreed upon, even by theologians who taught mediate animation.

• The Code is a universal disciplinary law and is protected by infallibility. Universal  means it is not limited to a particular territory, not that it binds all Catholics in all Rites. If that were not true, there would be no liturgical laws that are protected from error, which is demonstrably false.

• Canon 1 makes an exception that canons which involve matters of faith bind all Rites. Such a Canon is Canon 737 which teaches BOD. 

Conclusion

The Feeneyites can never stop clutching at straws in trying to save face with their recycled and ridiculous "arguments" against BOD and BOB. This post will end with some links to Steven Speray's blog where he has refuted the Dimonds:

Systematically Debunking the Dimond Brothers on BOD (Part One):

 stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-1

Systematically Debunking the Dimond Brothers on BOD (Part Two):

stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-2

Systematically Debunking the Dimond Brothers on BOD (Part Three):

stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-3

The Absurdities of Feeneyism:

stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/the-absurdities-of-feeneyism/

Addendum: A Response to Bobby Dimond

To My Readers: I received a response to this post from Bobby Dimond himself (aka "Brother Peter"). I published his comment below and in his short response he calls me  a "liar" (directly or using synonymous words/phrases) no less than seven times. That's all he and his brother Fred ever do--hurl kindergarten playground insults. I nevertheless thank him for responding so I can show my readership that he and his brother are the ones who continuously and brazenly distort church teaching to fit their heresy, i.e., THEY LIE.  I pray for their conversion and I ask all of you to do the same. They are leading countless souls into the Feeneyite heresy. They will have much to account for at Judgement. God pity them.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

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

Bobby writes: This is a pathetic article, with glaring errors, lies and deception throughout. But that’s typical coming from you. You are indeed a total sophist, and your errors can be refuted very quickly. Your article refutes nothing and contains your characteristic dishonesty.

Response: A sophomoric rant. Bold assertion with nothing to back it up. The real liar as will be shown here, is Bobby. 

Bobby writes: First, you BLATANTLY LIE near the beginning when you write:

“The crux of their argument runs thus: The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) teaches delayed ensoulment.”

You claim that we believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium taught delayed ensoulment. No, we didn’t say that. In fact, we said exactly the opposite, as anyone who watches the video can see. Did you even watch the video? We said that IF YOU ADHERE to the arguments typically advanced for ‘BOD’, then you would have to hold that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium taught delayed ensoulment. Are you capable of understanding the difference? Why do you lie? You blatantly misrepresent our position at the outset of this terrible piece. That’s because you don’t have the truth. You are, in fact, of your father, the Devil.

Response: Bobby has never heard of how real arguments are advanced. I never said, "This is what the Dimonds believe" but it is the crux of your ARGUMENT that IF the UOM taught delayed ensoulment, THEN this would follow. So, yes, I'm more than capable of understanding the difference, and it's a shame you can't understand what I was presenting as YOUR FORMULATED ARGUMENT, not what YOU BELIEVE. I apologize for giving a Feeneyite more credit for intelligence than he deserves. 

Bobby writes: You then make a huge blunder. You wrote: “If it were a change in belief (teaching immediate animation) the baptism would need to be done absolutely, not conditionally.”

You didn’t pay attention, you don’t know what you are talking about, and you missed canon 747. Canon 748 refers to baptizing them “at least conditionally” because there it’s including the cases in which the fetus is doubtfully alive. But canon 747 states that AT WHATEVER TIME an aborted fetus is born, it is to be baptized ABSOLUTELY if unquestionably found to be alive or conditionally if there is a doubt! Got it? That’s a change from the Roman Ritual, which would not baptize those fetuses, either conditionally or absolutely, if they resembled beasts. That’s also why the Wernz-Vidal commentary (which you purposely ignored because it destroys your article) said that the effective reason behind canon 747 is belief in immediate ensoulment, which “is required to be held” (teneda). They clearly considered immediately ensoulment to be (at least) a secondary object of infallibility to which people are bound, and they taught that one must abandon the previous position of the doctors. In connection with the other points in our video, that demonstrates that the issue of delayed ensoulment is certainly connected with faith. We proved that in our video with many points, demolishing the claims in this article.

Reply: Here, Bobby is probably relying on the hope that no one has access to Wernz-Vidal, which is written in Latin. I have access to it, and it does not say what he claims. Ius Canonicum, Volume I, [1934], pg. 38 reads: III... cuius praescripti efficax ratio habetur in sententia hodie communitur recepta et, relictis aliis doctorumantiquorum opininibus, tenenda, quod foetus humanus a primo conceptionis momento anima rationali informatur. Translation: the effective reason for the provisions [of Canon 747] is found in the common opinion received today and, leaving aside the other opinions of the doctors of antiquity, to be held, that the human fetus is formed from the first moment of conception by a rational soul. (Emphasis mine). 

Note to Bobby: THE COMMON OPINION is in immediate animation. Wernz-Vidal did NOT call it definitive, which would be the case if it were infallible by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). It reads "to be held"--not  held as "a matter of Faith" as canonists Abbo and Hannon teach about Baptism of Desire in Canon 737.  See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:744-745, cited in the post above. Please, Bobby, don't tell us the "real meaning" of Latin words; we all know how well that worked out for you with quae ex ipsa rei natura in Canon 1 and how Abbo and Hannon completely refute that false meaning you gratuitously assigned to it. It's bad enough you call yourself a "Benedictine" so don't falsely claim the title of "Latin scholar." You and your brother have no education higher than high school, yet you "know more" than Doctors of the Church (like St. Alphonsus Liguori) who "didn't understand things" as well as you and Fred. Pathetic.

You state that "They clearly considered immediately ensoulment to be (at least) a secondary object of infallibility to which people are bound, and they taught that one must abandon the previous position of the doctors." Definitive teachings are called by theologians definitive tenenda (Latin for “to be held definitively”). The word you're looking for (and which is nowhere in the text) is definitive. 

Who's lying now, Bobby? Canon Law was taking the safer course, given the status of the common opinion, as I stated in the post. Theologians McCarthy and Carol likewise confirm that immediate and delayed animation are opinions, with immediate animation being the common one replacing delayed animation. If canon law settled the matter, the Magisterium under true popes would have censured anything to the contrary.

Bobby writes: The rest of your article is just bluster and assertions, all refuted by the facts in our video. You also ignored what we proved about the Decretals of Gregory IX, the fact that the Catechism of Trent taught delayed ensoulment, and more. You are pathetic. You are truly John 3:5 mocking heretics, who accept the heresy that souls can be saved in false religions, and you are on the road to Hell.

Reply: Bluster? The fact that Abbo and Hannon show that Canon 737 applies to the entire Church--all Rites--and therefore, by Bobby's own standard of "universal," makes BOD a universal disciplinary law, and infallible? We call that in argumentation and logic a rebutting defeater for your argument. If you want Steve Speray and I to rip the rest of your assertion apart, just let me know, Bobby.   

Bobby writes: It’s easy to see why you remain anonymous. You don’t want to be held accountable for your terrible argumentation and outright lies.

Reply: I'm anonymous because I have a real career, Bobby. I can't endanger my family and friends to retribution from others due to my writing. Steve Speray is co-author and does not remain anonymous. I'm sure he would love for you to "hold him accountable" as he demolishes you.

Bobby writes: For example, on a separate matter, you repeatedly claimed that we now hold it’s a mortal sin for anyone to attend an una cum Mass. We have not made that statement. But you misrepresent us anyway because that’s what you do. You lie.

Reply: My readers see who the liar is now (and it isn't me or Steve Speray). It is very easy for Bobby to redact material on his website and call "liar." The Dimonds used to attend a Vatican II sect Eastern Rite, but now they don't. They claimed that you could attend SSPV and CMRI Masses ("Masses of heretics" according to them) as long as you don't contribute money. Bobby and Fred no longer say that's tenable. If  they redacted their Una Cum stance--fine. However, why don't they attend SSPX if it's OK? 

Praying for the conversion of Bobby and Fred Dimond, 

---Introibo

Addendum II: A Rejoinder to Bobby Dimond's Response to My First Addendum

To My Readers: Bobby Dimond, the Feeneyite "Benedictine," sent a two-part comment in response to my Addendum yesterday. It has been said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Bobby continues to call names--"liar" and synonymous terms and phrases being his favorite invective. He continues to harp upon Wernz-Vidal as if it means what he thinks it says and is dispositive. Bobby, whose highest level of education is a high school diploma and has no ecclesiastical training or education, sees fit to fancy himself an expert in Latin. His qualifications in that area are no better than his claim of being a "Benedictine." 

I'm grateful that he has given me the opportunity to, once more, expose him as the heretic he is, and show everyone why Feeneyites have, in the words of Steven Speray, "a sickness of soul."

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

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

Bobby writes: First, I don’t read your blog, except when it comes to our attention that you have lied about us. Not many people read your blog, and no one should. I commented on this article because it came to our attention that you lied about us again. That’s why I’m here, and I won’t be here long. You really don’t deserve further responses, even though I could continue to correct your errors and misrepresentations. Anyone can see the truth in our video. Your constant mockery and attempted ad hominem attacks are just an attempt to veil the weakness of your arguments and divert from your many lies and misrepresentations. 

Reply: It "comes to your attention" when you read my blog. Excellent! That means there are Feeneyites that read it and alert you, so they are getting the truth. In the end, the truth wins out, and they, by the grace of God, will become Catholics! Two of my readers informed me they were Feeneyites until they started reading my blog. I believe you do read my blog because it's way more interesting then the drivel you write, and I don't repeat the same nonsense ad nauseum. I have hope for your conversion, Bobby. "Not many people read your blog." I get over 1K readers a day, so it's not much given 7 billion people, but even one soul converted and saved by God through this blog is priceless. My readers are also the BEST. (Quality over quantity). 

As to "correcting my errors and misrepresentations," two conditions would have to obtain: (a) I would actually have to make errors and misrepresentations, and (b) you would have to be intelligent enough to understand Catholic theology and use logical thinking to spot any such errors. Since neither condition is satisfied, there's nothing for you to do. Ever. Telling the truth is not "ad hominem," Bobby. It is a fact that you have no ecclesiastical training or education, and no secular education beyond high school. Ditto for Fred. Yet, you  understand Church teaching on BOD better than the Doctors of the Church and you have an article "exposing" the "heresies" of theologian Van Noort:

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

Here is Van Noort's CV:

"VAN NOORT, GERARD

Theologian; b. Hageveld, Holland, May 10, 1861; d. Amsterdam, Sept. 15, 1946. He 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. It was brought up to date by J. P. Verhaar, also of the Warmond faculty, and in an English edition (for the first three volumes) by John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy. 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 in 1930 and in 1934 Pius XI appointed him a domestic prelate." (See encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/van-noort-gerard; Emphasis mine). 

Imagine having his theology manual "use[d] all over the world" under true popes and bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and none of them picked up on his errors. He was allowed to teach in the seminary as a Professor of Dogmatic Theology under Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X. Yet, where these clerical giants failed, Bobby Dimond found heresies! The second coming of Aquinas lives in upstate New York. I never would have guessed.

Bobby writes: Here, again, is what you stated:

“The crux of THEIR ARGUMENT runs thus: The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) teaches delayed ensoulment.”

This is a lie. Our argument was never that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches delayed ensoulment. But you deliberately presented it that way to confuse people and make it look like we are inconsistent and wrong. That’s a sin, for which you will be held accountable before God. 

Reply:  Once more,  I never said, "This is what the Dimonds believe" but it is the crux of your ARGUMENT that IF the UOM taught delayed ensoulment, THEN this would follow. Not belief, argumentation. I commit no sin because you seemingly can't grasp what I wrote. 

Bobby writes: It’s similar to how you LIED about us when you wrote that we believe: “An Una Cum Mass is one of the most evil sins you can commit”. Again, that’s totally untrue. You made it up. We have never said that attendance at an una cum Mass is a mortal sin for the reason that the Mass is una cum. You also lied about us when you falsely claimed that we consider pleasure in the marital act to be sinful. No, we don’t. You presented us as holding that extreme view because you are a liar and you tried to destroy our reputation. It’s very bad activity. You lie a lot, and you have lied about us many times. If you receive Holy Communion, it’s a sacrilege because you are definitely in mortal sin for those lies alone (in addition to your other problems).

Reply: Wow, Bobby! You know the state of my soul. Amazing. How do you know I didn't just make an "innocent mistake" like St. Alphonsus did with regard to BOD?  What about theologian Van Noort who taught BOD? Innocent mistake and in Heaven, or lying heretic damned to Hell? What about canonists Abbo and Hannon? Innocent mistake, lying heretics? Do you receive private revelations from God as to the state of a person's soul? Tell you what. I'm a reasonable man. IF you really didn't write those things about Una Cum and marital pleasure, I retract them and apologize. Am I still in mortal sin? You do tell married couples that they cannot use periodic continence, as taught by the Church, and trouble consciences needlessly. (See vaticancatholic.com/natural-family-planning-nfp). You also deny the Blessed Virgin Mary her title "Co-Redemptrix" calling it "contrary to Catholic teaching" even while popes used the title. (See vaticancatholic.com/natural-family-planning-nfp). You are, undeniably, a Feeneyite heretic. I don't have to lie to make you look evil and heretical. You do a great job just as you are. You told a terrible lie about Mario Derksen of NOW. 

Bobby writes: Second, with regard to the Wernz-Vidal citation: stop pretending. You only know about it because you saw it in our video, and your ‘translation’ is just an attempt to slightly alter ours. However, in the process you made a significant mistake and revealed that you don’t know what you are talking about. I highly doubt that you could correctly translate even a small part of the passage on your own. Your attempted rendering of the passage was this:

YOUR ATTEMPTED MODIFICATION OF OUR TRANSLATION: “the effective reason for the provisions [of Canon 747] is found in the common opinion received today and, leaving aside the other opinions of the doctors of antiquity, to be held, that the human fetus is formed from the first moment of conception by a rational soul.”

The passage doesn’t actually say “provisions” (plural), as you render it. It uses the genitive singular “praescripti”, agreeing with “cuius” (meaning “of which prescription”). The genitive plural (which is not used) would be “praescriptorum”. That’s why our translation more accurately rendered it as: “prescription”. Second (and more significantly), your erred in trying to modify the end of our translation (simply in an attempt to make it look like you weren’t relying on our translation, when you were). You rendered the passage as saying: “the human fetus is formed”. But the Latin is informatur, which means “is informed”. That’s a significant difference in this context. By obscuring (in your faulty translation) the essential distinction made by the proponents of delayed ensoulment between the moment the fetus is formed and the moment it is informed [by a soul], the counter-position of the proponents of immediate ensoulment is also obscured (in your faulty translation). So, in your attempt to pretend that you were not relying on our translation, you failed and exposed the fact that you don’t understand Latin (while you arrogantly pretend that you do)! You are a phony to the core. It’s remarkable how God allows heretics like you to fall into the pit they have dug for themselves. (I wonder if you will even post this response.)

Next, the word ‘tenenda’ is a gerundive meaning ‘to be held’, for which ‘required to be held’ is a perfectly fine English translation. A gerundive expresses obligation. Wernz-Vidal don’t need to use the word ‘definitively’ to express the obligation to adhere to the position. In fact, in the definition of papal infallibility basically the same gerundive is used (tenendam, in the accusative case). There it clearly refers to a matter that must be held definitively.

Reply: Yes, I publish anything you send and will rip it apart with joy. I used Google Translate, because I'm not a Latinist, and unlike you, I know when I'm not an expert in a given field. I obtained Wernz-Vidal and had a Latinist (graduate degree in Latin) give the exact translation after your assertion that your translation was correct and mine was wrong. Here it is:

"The legally effective guiding principle of that precept is regarded, TODAY IN THE COMMONLY RECEIVED OPINION AND IN THE OTHER INHERITED OPINIONS OF THE OLD DOCTORS, as one that must be held, because the human fetus is informed with a rational soul from the first moment of conception." 

Got that, Bobby? Let me spell it out for you:

• Immediate ensoulment is a commonly received opinion
• It was also in the other opinions of Doctors prior. Hence, it was never taught by the UOM as infallible
• "Must be held" because it is the safer course due to the common opinion, not "definitive tenenda." The definition of papal infallibility need not use "definitive" since it was (obviously) ex cathedra

Bobby writes: Also, we showed the Latin in the video. Thus, when you write that we are “probably relying on the hope that no one has access to Wernz-Vidal”, you are once again displaying your extremely childish dishonesty and bluster. According to your nonsense, we don’t want people to know it was written in Latin when WE ARE THE ONES who presented the original Latin to thousands of people (including you, who doesn’t understand Latin). Anyone of good will can see through your utter phoniness and insincerity. And your attempt to modify our translation even slightly resulted in failure.

Reply: Uh, showing the pages in a video that can't be copied and examined is not really "presenting the Latin," now is it? My translation, just given, comes from a Latinist with an advanced graduate degree. I dare another Latinist with a degree to prove that translation faulty.

Bobby writes: Moreover, you are missing the point (perhaps deliberately). Wernz-Vidal explicitly state that belief in immediate ensoulment is THE REASON BEHIND canon 747. That’s beyond dispute.

Wernz-Vidal: “The effective reason for this prescription [canon 747] is found in the position commonly accepted today and – leaving aside the different opinions of the doctors of old – required to be held [tenenda], that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul from the first moment of its conception.”

Thus, the Code’s law (in canon 747) is BASED ON A BELIEF IN IMMEDIATE ENSOULMENT. Got it? That fact refutes your whole article. Indeed, when you argue that one is free to reject immediate ensoulment, you are arguing that one doesn’t need to take the position of the Code. Do you realize that you have thereby refuted yourself and proven our point? 

Reply: That the safer course is taken because of advances in science and medicine made immediate animation THE COMMON OPINION, CONCEDED. That immediate animation is thereby taught by the Code such that it is infallible or even settled; DENIED. 

Proof:

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

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

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

There is nothing I wrote that is self-defeating.

Bobby writes: By making that argument, you admit that the Code could be wrong in a canon. It also means that the Code advanced a position on immediate ensoulment which is contrary to the Catechism of Trent, St. Alphonsus, the Roman Ritual, etc. This proves our point about the limits of infallibility. Also, it is people like you who accuse the Church’s universal and traditional law (e.g. on not giving Church burial to the unbaptized) of being in error, as our video proves. You also accuse the Church’s universal professions of faith (and its dogmatic teaching on John 3:5) of being heretical. There’s really nothing else to say to you. You are a liar and a fool who, as I’ve just shown, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Reply: I have shown the true meaning of the Canon, and it isn't wrong. I'm more than amused when you state that "Catechisms can contain error," and "theologians like St. Alphonsus can be wrong," when they teach BOD, yet you do not hesitate to cite them when it suits your purpose. YOU--Bobby and Fred Dimond--will tell people when something is true or not. YOU are the pseudo-Magisterium of Feeneyism. 

I think I've amply demonstrated who is lying, incompetent, and a fool (and it's not me):

• Your translation of  quae ex ipsa rei natura in Canon 1 REFUTED by Canonists Abbo and Hannon

• Your translation and interpretation of Canon 747 REFUTED by a Latinist and by theologians O'Donnell, McCarthy, and Carol

• Your opinion on when Canon Law applies to all Rites is DEMONSTRATED TO APPLY TO CANON 737 by Abbo and Hannon, which makes it a UNIVERSAL AND INFALLIBLE DISCIPLINARY LAW USING YOUR OWN [INVENTED] STANDARD. It is you who have refuted yourself

Bobby, please feel free to keep reading (I'm sure you do!) and ask your followers to do the same. I'll be happy to continue to show your "reason-challenged" arguments to be fallacious and contrary to Church teaching. In the battle of wits, you come unarmed. Hopefully, by my prayers and those of my faithful readers, you will convert to the One True Church and abandon Feeneyism before you die. If (God forbid!) you die as an obdurate heretic you will remain extra ecclesiam  where we know there is nulla salus. 

Praying for you always, Bobby (and Fred), 

---Introibo

Addendum III: Bobby Dimond the "Latinist" and "Theologian" Returns for More

To My Readers: Bobby Dimond just won't stop. He's out to try and save face. He does not answer my arguments concerning Canon 1, or the teachings of the theologians. Now, he claims superiority in Latin, and hangs everything on a single passage of Wernz-Vidal, even though it is not dispositive. I hope all reading can see how incredibly theologically bankrupt is the teaching of Bobby Dimond--and all Feeneyites. 

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

Bobby writes: Wow, I think it’s providential that you have continued to attempt to respond to me, for with each new response you just further expose your ignorance and errors (and that you are, in fact, a buffoon). 

Reply: It sure is Divine Providence! You keep reading and coming back for more. That’s an excellent opportunity for me to further show your heresy and bring people (by the Grace of God) into the One True Church. You know you look bad, so you keep coming back hoping to repair the damage, yet it just keeps getting worse for you. Maybe slink away and do another “crushing video” as inept as the instant case.

Calling me a “buffoon.”  Excellent, Bobby. It’s a step up from your usual “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” Now that you’re trying to get educated, perhaps you’d like to try an insult of a higher level to improve your vocabulary. Next time I write something you don’t like, try telling me, “Oh, yeah? Your mother wears army boots!” (Just trying to help you out, Bobby). 

Bobby writes: You initially pretended like you understood the Latin of Wernz-Vidal (which was not true), but after I corrected your erroneous attempt to translate part of the passage, you admitted that you used ‘Google translate’.

Reply: Nope. I never stated that I understood Latin as an expert. Please cite me where I wrote such. You ASSUME that. You make a lot of false assumptions, Bobby. I did take two years of Latin as an undergrad and some lessons with my spiritual fater, Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD. He held a Master’s in Latin besides his Doctorate in Canon Law. I would never consider myself “an expert” or “Latinist” on that basis. It would be laughable, and I have no ego to appease. I know the areas of knowledge in which I do have expertise and those in which I do not. 

Bobby writes:  Unlike you, I read Latin on a regular basis. I have also received some high-level instruction in Latin, and I have been consulting with an expert in Latin (who attended the University of Cambridge) for over ten years.

Reply: You “read Latin on a regular basis”! Bravo, Bobby. I go fishing, but that doesn’t make me Jacque Cousteau. You received “high-level instruction.” That must be some high school you attended. Harvard High? Your expert in Latin “attended” (not graduated) Cambridge for over ten years. Most people graduate in 4. Says a lot about both the consultant and the one getting the consultation. 

There’s a big difference between reading and comprehending. Remember the  Latin quae ex ipsa rei natura, Bobby? Let me refresh your memory. You claim Canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law makes it clear that it is not "universal" since it does not bind the Eastern (Oriental) Rites. Canon 1 states:

"Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, BY THEIR NATURE, apply to the Oriental." (Emphasis mine). Even you admit that a Universal disciplinary law—if it applies to all Catholics in all Rites, is infallible.

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

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your translation of  quae ex ipsa rei natura in Canon 1 REFUTED by Canonists Abbo and Hannon, whose work is written in English. The fact that Abbo and Hannon show that Canon 737 applies to the entire Church--all Rites--and therefore, by Bobby's own standard of "universal," makes BOD a universal disciplinary law, and infallible. We call that in argumentation and logic a rebutting defeater for your argument.

Now, YOU are going to teach ME the “real meaning” of Latin, when you’ve amply demonstrated how inept you are and don’t have a good grasp on English, your native tongue? Then again, you know enough to pick out the “heresies” of theologian Van Noort, and the “innocent mistakes” of St. Alphonsus Liguori. That’s some incredible high school you attended, Bobby. Tell me, why didn’t your Cambridge consultant get that phrase in Canon 1 correct? Why didn’t you? 

You refute yourself—game, set, match! Feeneyites lose! Therefore, the discussion on Wernz-Vidal is moot, yet I shall press on, lest Bobby claims “I proved you wrong with my “correct” Latin translation and you couldn’t answer.” Yawn. 

Bobby writes: Here’s the Latin text:

LATIN: Cuius praescripti efficax ratio habetur in sententia hodie communiter recepta et, relictis aliis doctorum antiquorum opinionibus, tenenda, quod foetus humanus a primo conceptionis momento anima rationali informatur.

Here’s a proper translation (as posted in our video):

PROPER TRANSLATION: The effective reason for this prescription is found in the position commonly accepted today and – leaving aside [relictis] the different opinions of the doctors of old – required to be held [tenenda], that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul from the first moment of its conception.

Reply: I have sent your comment to my Latinist. I will publish what he says, as a postscript here in Addendum III. However, by using YOUR translation—it changes NOTHING. 

“The effective reason for this prescription is found in the position COMMONLY ACCEPTED today and – leaving aside [relictis] the different opinions of the doctors of old – required to be held [tenenda], that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul from the first moment of its conception”

Immediate ensoulment is “COMMONLY” (not definitively) accepted. TENENDA—it  does not say definitive tenenda. Definitive teachings are called by theologians definitive tenenda (Latin for “to be held definitively”). The word you're looking for (and which is nowhere in the text) is definitive. 

Bobby writes: YOUR ‘EXPERT’S’ FAULTY TRANSLATION:

The legally effective guiding principle of that precept is regarded, TODAY IN THE COMMONLY RECEIVED OPINION AND IN THE OTHER INHERITED OPINIONS OF THE OLD DOCTORS, as one that must be held, BECAUSE the human fetus is informed with a rational soul from the first moment of conception.

• First, your consultant mistranslates ‘relictis’ as ‘inherited’. ‘Relicitis’ here is a perfect passive participle of relinquo, which means ‘leave aside’ or ‘abandon’. It’s part of an ablative absolute clause (relictis aliis doctorum antiquorum opinionibus), meaning: “with the other opinions of the ancient doctors having been left aside or abandoned”. It is not a further prepositional phrase governed by 'in', for had that been the case the 'in' would need to be repeated. Wernz-Vidal use ‘aliis’ to contrast the ‘other’ or ‘different’ opinions of the ancients (i.e. delayed ensoulment) with the position commonly accepted today (immediate ensoulment). Wernz-Vidal are obviously saying that the opinions of the ancient doctors on delayed ensoulment are no longer held (abandoned, left aside). To say that they are being ‘inherited’ (as per your consultant’s mistranslation) is clearly wrong and makes no sense; for delayed ensoulment, not immediate ensoulment, was the dominant position among the ancients. Your consultant fails to understand the obvious and essential distinction being made by Wernz-Vidal between what was believed in the past (delayed ensoulment) and what is believed today (immediate ensoulment).

Second, he mistranslates quod as ‘because’ rather than ‘that’, failing to understand that in ecclesiastical Latin this conjunction is frequently employed in a non-classical manner to introduce an indirect statement (as is the case here, where it expands appositionally on the nature of the aforementioned sententia).

• Third, what HE WRITES is essentially this: “This opinion (held today as well as in the past) must be maintained because it is actually not an opinion but a fact!” What kind of person would argue his case in that illogical manner?! That’s obviously not what Wernz-Vidal said.

Reply: Bobby, I’m going to teach you a new word today. The word is “ultracrepidarian.” That means “ a person who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise.”  You are an arrogant, pseudo-educated dolt who has no ecclesiastical education or training and no secular education above high school. YET, (a) you can correct the “innocent mistakes” of St. Alphonsus Liguori, which no pope, bishop, or theologian was able to detect. You find the “heresies” in the writings of one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, Monsignor Van Noort. Now, you allegedly read some Latin and have a consultant which allows you to show the “real meaning” of Canon Law. Tell that to canonists Abbo and Hannon. 

Bobby writes: So, you’ve totally embarrassed yourself by presenting this and arrogantly committing yourself to this. I also decided to share your consultant’s “translation” with the aforementioned Latin expert (who studied Latin at Cambridge). He called the translation that you have presented and endorsed (from your consultant) “laughable”. He fully agreed with me that you and your consultant are wrong. You trusted the wrong person. It’s emblematic of how your faulty understanding of the Magisterium is based on trust in man and not in God. Jeremiah 17:5- “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength.”

Reply: Um, I’ve embarrassed myself? I’m arrogant? Did you forget how you were confuted definitively by Abbo and Hannon concerning Canon 1? By the way, Bobby, aren’t you trusting your consultant as correct and mine wrong? Isn’t he a man also? That would make Jeremiah 17:5 apply equally to YOU. Perhaps you should go back to that incredible high school and take basic logic. Can you say, “self-refuting”? I knew you could (apologies to Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood).

Bobby writes: Barring a conversion, your trust in man (rather than in God) will result in your eternal demise. You even “dared” people to prove the translation faulty. I just did, and any honest and competent expert in Latin will confirm that I’m correct.

Reply: (a) Even **IF** your translation were correct, I demonstrated it does you no good. Theologians O'Donnell, McCarthy, and Carol show this to be the case in regards to the Canon. (b) I’m hoping my Latinist will reply, and if wrong, nothing changes, as it is not dispositive as I’ve stated and SHOWN WHY. I look forward to a “Latinist battle” if he stands firm and explains himself.

Bobby writes:  Perhaps even the individual you consulted will acknowledge that ‘relictis’ here doesn’t mean ‘inherited’, and that there’s an obvious distinction being made between the former position (delayed ensoulment) and the current position (immediate ensoulment). I’m not saying that he doesn’t know any Latin, but he’s clearly wrong here. We have saved all of this.

Reply: You saved it. Yea! Did you save Abbo and Hannon with your confuted translation of Canon 1? 

Bobby writes:  It’s noteworthy that the garbage you publish (such as what I just refuted) is what Mario of ‘NOW’ links to. He links to nonsense and lies. I wonder if you give him money, and if perhaps that’s the only or main reason he sometimes links to your trash and lies? If so, that would be additionally revealing about his character. I hope you keep your promise to post all of my responses. You also owe it to your few readers to correct your blatant misrepresentation of the text.

Reply: Translation (no expert needed): “Introibo, your mother wears army boots!” What was it you said about how bad it is for someone to use ad hominem? Finally, I retract nothing unless and until I hear back from my Latinist. Will you take back your faulty translation of “quae ex ipsa rei natura” or does the duty of retracting errors not apply to you? 

Bobby, you know I have more than just a few readers, and that you’ve lost some Feeneyite followers due to God working through my blog; that’s why you keep coming back trying to save face. That’s Ok. A bruised ego is a hurtful thing, and you need to feel better. I keep praying for you and your brother Fred to convert. 

Please feel free to come back and read some more (hopefully with comprehension). Hope springs eternal.

May Christ and His Blessed Mother lead Fred and you into all truth.

---Introibo 

Final Addendum: Bobby Just Can't Quit Reading This Awesome Blog

To My Readers: Bobby comes back for the fourth (and what he claims to be the "final" time). In keeping with my promise, I will publish what he wrote in the comments here. It will also be the subject of Monday's post "Contending For The Faith"---Countering the Sophistry of the Dimonds." I will print it there as well. I will publish Bobby's "final" comments, along with my post, simultaneously, on Monday.

Unlike Bobby and Fred Dimond, I have a real career as an attorney and I'm falling behind in my work. This is a heads-up to all that I will gladly keep my promise to always publish what they send to me, and prevent Bobby from saying, "That lying, evil, heretical, John 3:5 mocking, arrogant, two-faced, good-for-nothing, buffoon, Introibo (whose mother wears army boots) can't answer my crushing, super-intelligent, amazing, purely Catholic and irrefutable final comments! I win! I decimated him!" 

You good people who read here know what I mean. Therefore, let it be known publicly that I will publish Bobby Dimond's comments in Monday's post along with my response to him. I will also publish them on this post as well on Monday. Promise kept! 

Monday's post will be a very good one (for my readers, but not for Bobby). So, stay tuned folks, and get ready for an extra good read on Monday.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo