Monday, February 26, 2024

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! 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

123 comments:

  1. Good work, Steven and Introïbo ! Blogs like yours and Novus Ordo Watch are invaluable sources for anyone wanting to be formed in the true Faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Our thanks to you for your kind words!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo and Steve Speray

      Delete
  2. "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)."

    Isn't this the same St. Alphonsus that they criticize for teaching Baptism of Desire in the very same manual of moral theology? I think their article calls it a "blatant error", if I recall correctly.

    So why would they be relying on an authority which they themselves profess to be unreliable on the very same topic under broader discussion (BOD)?

    Bizarre. (Or perhaps an example of intellectual inconsistency on the Dimonds' part.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember, if you accept any form of BOD, you are a demonic heretic who denies John 3:5 and what the Church has always taught on EENS and the necessity of baptism. But if you're a canonized saint and doctor of the church who teaches BOD, you're merely in error or mistaken. I have a soft spot for the Dimonds, but this is one of the most frustrating things they do.

      The mental gymnastics performed by Feeneyites are outrageous, but it should be no surprise given that their "defender of orthodoxy" was a priest who thought you could be justified and not saved, who thought that he could legitimately start his own religious order while still a member of another one, who failed to dignify Pope Pius XII's all-expenses-paid summoning in order to clarify his teachings (what did he fear, the Pope can't understand EENS?), who accused the Holy Office of teaching heresy, and who reconciled with Montini and the Vatican II religion in the early 70s. The fact that the arch-modernist Montini did not ask Feeney to recant any errors should be a cause of concern and not celebration for Feeneyites, because Montini's robber council had just recently explicitly denied EENS.

      Delete
    2. @anon7:03 and Sneedevacantist,
      Thank you both for your insightful comments! Please see Bobby Dimond's comment below, and my response in the Addendum above!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    [Our websites: vaticancatholic.com, endtimes.video]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOBBY!!!
      How are you, Bobby? Give my regards to your brother, Fred.
      Please see my addendum response to you above. Thank you for commenting; you give me another opportunity to expose YOUR lies!

      Please keep reading my blog. You may actually learn something and convert to Catholicism.

      Praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. As the late Fr. Cekada once said to me when the Dimond Bros. were brought up... "Dimonds are forever."

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Thank you Bro. Peter for exposing the heretics who spread modernist trash on this blog. Introibo is diabolically obsessed with telling the few readers he has that souls can be saved in false religions even those who obstinately reject Christ. He misrepresents the positions of actual Catholics who disprove his false positions and one of his only tactics in argumentation is to setup straw mans. Introibo is certainly a mouthpiece for Satan. As for Speray, he was totally exposed for having a forked tongue when he debated Bro. Peter some years back on BoD . Speray was stumbling and bumbling over his words and was shown to be a total apostate in that debate. No one reads Speray, and no one should, since his words will lead your soul to ruin. This blog is mostly Introibo writing 50-60 percent of the comments in a subtlety deceptive way and he has one or two sycophants in the comment section to praise his lies to make it look like people agree and comment on this blog. The best part of this blog is reading true Catholics totally refute the arguments of these wicked apostates.

      Delete
    4. Lee,
      Lol !! Dimonds are also a heretic's best friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. @anon10:30
      Glad to see you here, rather than MHFM (Most Heinous False Monastery)! Glad to have you among my few readers--For MANY are called but FEW are chosen, right?

      Praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. @anon10:30 I did not speak with a forked tongue. The only liar in the conversation was Dimond who lied about the facts about what was actually stated. I don't judge the hearts of men like you and the Dimonds. You play God and you will be judged as you judge.

      Delete
  4. Hello Introibo and Steven

    This has to be one of the best writings on this blog. It takes to pieces the lies of the Dimonds . Well done and thank you so much.

    Yes pray for the conversion of these two groofs. They are taking themselves and countless others to hell.

    God bless

    A devoted family of yours
    Wanganui,New Zealand

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It should say goofs. Sorry

      Delete
    2. Family in NZ,
      Thank you for your comment! Glad to see NZ and Australia readers commenting! Hope you like ADDENDUM II just added today.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. 1 OF 2

    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. 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. 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).

    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.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOBBY!!
      Coming back for more of an intellectual beat-down! Good for my readers! Thanks! See my ADDENDUM II above!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. There may well be a sado-masochistic aspect to Feeneyism, and, worse yet, on an effeminate level. The Dimonds are essentially women who live for drama, and it seems they are never more theatrical as when they get caught in a good error of logic combined with ignorance of the topic. I suppose that comes with being a phony "Benedictine" who spends what would otherwise be ora et labora time in front of a computer screen, rather like today's public school teenagers. I think the Dimonds' obsessive last-word-ism is also a well known homosexual trait. The desperation for attention brings to mind the likes of Meghan Markle.

      Delete
    3. @anon7:45
      Wow. Never considered it like that, but you made a valid point.

      Thank you for commenting!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. 2 OF 2

    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.

    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.

    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? 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BOBBY!!
      Coming back for more of an intellectual beat-down! Good for my readers! Thanks! See my ADDENDUM II above!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. There is only one, traditional lyric poet writing today, and that poet is a Catholic who recognizes that the the throne of Peter is vacant. https://mackenzielyricpoetry.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:37
      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Introibo and Steve Speray are two arrogant men who are leading souls to perdition with the modernist filth they propagate on the internet and in other places where they pertinaciously believe souls can be in a state of grace who viciously reject Christ. These tools of Satan use sophistry, straw man arguments, and other methods of deceptive argumentation to present their demonic ideas. Steve Speray debated one of The Dimonds some years ago and was in need of an exorcism after he showed that he is filled with the spirit of antichrist. He talked out of both sides of his mouth in that debate and did not make one cogent argument. He was questioned about his positions and ideas and he contradicted himself many times in the discussion. Thankfully, not many people know who these bad willed heretics are since they mostly operate in echo chambers and their material isn’t widespread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:18
      Ah, no neither of us believes souls can be in the state of grace who viciously reject Christ. That is a caricature (Strawman) of the Church's teaching on BOD. Glad you came to see Bobby get an trouncing! Keep reading and maybe become a Catholic!

      Praying for you,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I was not all over the place in our phone conversation with Dimond. Hardly a debate. He refused a formal or written debate (I think I still have the emails to prove it). At 15:15 into the so-called debate, Bro. Peter actually LIES when he says that Fr. Denis says, “A Jew who rejects Christ can have a state of grace.” THAT’S NOT WHAT Fr. Denis stated. So Dimond lied about the subject, which was whether our priests and bishops believe that souls can be saved in false religions. Dimond also refused to listen to reason and confusing the issues. When I was talking about conversion in the internal forum, Dimond kept talking about the external forum. He couldn't make proper distinctions. In fact, Dimond actually argued that the external forum always reflected the internal forum and vice versa. This is absolutely STUPID! My problem was that I was too nice and tried to reason with an unreasonable person. As for being possessed by any spirit, I will admit that I was foolish for trying to be nice and reasonable with a devil. I learned a great lesson. It won't happen again.

      Delete
    3. Steve Speray believes Christopher Hitchens could have been in a state of grace and possibly saved at or after death which is not infallibly taught anywhere. Non-Catholics must convert before death. Hitchens was a degenerate atheist who viciously rejected Christ, but wicked apostates like yourselves will say “we don’t know” if Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hitchens, Martin Luther, a Talmudic Jew, or an Aztec demon worshipper were actually Catholic. You think that they might have had unity with True Catholics while they lived and could have been saved because you made up this sentimental heresy where you think Non-Catholics are given a special revelation at or after death. The Truth has been revealed and there are no exceptions to John 3:5. You are a disgrace to all the missionary martyrs who died to save souls through water baptism and by preaching The Faith to depraved and violent savages who became Catholic through water baptism and being taught the essential mysteries of The Faith. And so during the aforementioned debate, , Speray contradicted himself more times than I care to count on whether or not Christopher Hitchens could have been in a state of grace. You do hold that it is possible that those who detest Our Lord might actually be Catholic. Also don’t pray for anyone since your prayers would be in efficacious since you are not Catholic. But with all sincerity I will pray for you and ask others to do so.

      Delete
    4. Your prayers are *INEFFICACIOUS, fruitless, barren since you are NOT Catholic. I wanted to make that clear since there was a minor typo above. Thank you.

      Delete
    5. @anon7:24
      I'm glad you know the eternal fate of those who died. Must be nice to get special revelations from God. Here, however, is Church teaching:

      The staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:

      Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

      A. Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite Mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable (invincible) ignorance.

      Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

      A. No.

      Q. Why not?

      A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

      Q. What do you mean by this?

      A. I mean that God, in His infinite Mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the Truth of the Catholic Faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

      Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

      A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

      Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

      A. Eternal damnation.

      As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God. Does this in any way detract from our duty to convert everyone to the One True Church? Hardly. If anything, it should make us work harder for the salvation of souls. In the natural order, if you knew someone was poor and starving, would you bring them food or rely on God to miraculously feed them?

      I will indeed pray for you, because God hears the prayers of True Catholics. I'm glad that you'll pray for me because you wish me well. That's an act of Christian Charity. You might be given the great grace to enter the One True Church before death, "...for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8)

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. I learned quite a bit from reading a book on The Blessed Eucharist by Fr. Muller. I certainly agree on much of what Fr. Muller says here but it’s not a matter of whether I agree or not though. One must adhere to the infallible teachings of The Church. The part about Non-Catholics in external forum being possibly united to the soul of the Church is an error. The Church never infallibly taught this point made Fr. Muller that people who die as Non-Catholics externally might perhaps be given extraordinary grace to be saved. God can enlighten someone at the hour of death and Non-Catholics can convert by being water baptized and accepting the essential mysteries of The Faith before they die. They must be visible members. There is no internal forum grace. You have to have Catholic Faith during your life or before death, not at death or after death. See The Athanasian Creed. Pope Eugene IV infallibly declared all must become Catholic before end of life. A pagan, Jew, Muslim in external forum, cannot enter the kingdom of God. This is infallibly taught by Eugene IV. I’ll have quotes below. You would have to say a Jew in the external forum at his death could have died without becoming a member of The Church. This contradicts extraordinary magisterium. All those Outside the Church in external forum are lost. This is not my opinion or my some ability I do not have to judge souls, but it comes from the Dogmatic teachings of the Church. Is a Talmudic Jew who is struck by lightning possibly saved? Is he given this revelation to become Catholic as the lightning strikes him dead or is it given to him a millisecond before or after that?

      Delete
    7. Continued:

      Soul and Body of Church not Separate

      Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone.  The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature.  The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.” 

      Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body  is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

      Those who die externally Non-Catholic and not visible members can’t be saved. Period.
       

      Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

      One must belong to body which includes the soul of The Church in order to be saved.

      Soul of Church is The Holy Ghost, which is not separate from Christ its Head.

      Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:  “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”

      There is no invisible soul of the Church in which people in false religions in the external forum can be united to in the internal forum.

      Thank you for posting my comments. I hope to convert people to these truths.

      Delete
    8. at Anonymous 7:24 PM: If you paid attention, I made it clear that Hitchens in the right state of mind would not have been in a state of grace but he could have been given the chance of final penitence at the end of his life. Yes, non-Catholics must convert before death, but the issue is when does death actually occur and what is the time period when there's still time to convert? Yes, Hitchens appeared to be a degenerate atheist who viciously rejected Christ, but even wicked apostates can repent at the end. We don't know the end of anyone unless special revelation is given such as one coming back from hell or something. The Truth has been revealed and there are A COUPLE OF exceptions to John 3:5 AS THE CHURCH TAUGHT AT TRENT AND OTHER PLACES. I never contradicted myself. Not once! There are nuances that must be acknowledged, which Dimond and their brainless followers refuse to acknowledge. I do NOT hold that it is possible that those who detest and reject Our Lord might actually be Catholic. However, we don't know the hearts of men. We judge the externals but the internals is another story. They don't always reflect each other.

      Delete
    9. @anon9:37 & 9:40
      The worn out "No Soul of the Church" Feeneyite argument! I gladly publish it because it is so easy to refute and shows a total lack of theological understanding. You'll make no converts to Feeneyism with that!

      Your citations do not logically prove anything. Some theologians tried to explain how BOD could best be understood. The "body/soul" of the Church was largely abandoned. The dogma is "OUTSIDE the Church, no salvation," and NOT "WITHOUT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP no salvation." You must be WITHIN the Church to be saved.

      That catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of theirs are saved by BOD is taught by Canon Law which is infallible. There are two deadly Canons in the (1917) Code that destroy the Feeneyite position.

      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).

      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.

      Therefore, catechumens can have remission of sin without baptism. As theologian King teaches, "It is said outside the Church no man is saved, and this ought to be understood as those who are NEITHER IN FACT NOR IN DESIRE WITHIN THE CHURCH, just as ALL theologians commonly teach on Baptism." See "The Necessity of the Church for Salvation in Selected Theological Writings of the Past Century," [1960], pgs. 240-255).

      There are MEMBERS BY DESIRE.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Anon 9:37,

      After Introibo quoted from Fr. Michael Muller's catechism, you said... "

      I certainly agree on much of what Fr. Muller says here but it’s not a matter of whether I agree or not though... The Church never infallibly taught this point made Fr. Muller that people who die as Non-Catholics externally might perhaps be given extraordinary grace to be saved."

      Does this mean you believe Fr. Michael Muller is a heretic, a liar, with devils coming out of his mouth? If not, then that means all you can say is a person is wrong without labeling them the same as the Dimond Bros. wouldn't you agree?

      Nevertheless, St. Alphonsus Ligouri said BOD was de fide and he is a doctor of the Church. Meaning that everything he teaches is safe to be believed according to the Church. If it's not safe to believe what St. Alphonus taught, then the Church would be a liar in so far as what it deems safe.

      BTW Pope St. Pius X believed in baptism of desire when he stated in his catechism (YES it was HIS catechism, that HE APPROVED)

      29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
      A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

      Is he a heretic, a liar, with devils coming out of his mouth? I dare you to say he is.

      Lee

      Delete
    11. Lee, Introibo, Speray

      We must go by the far greater authority, the proximate rule of Faith, (the extraordinary magisterium) not a pseudo magisterium, or modernist trash like Suprema Haec Sacra which the sycophants who comment on this blog adhere to without question. Theologians or priests who contributed their theological opinions or made academic statements could most certainly be in error in good faith. It is those who obstinately reject Church Dogma and who are aware of the facts who become formal heretics. Like the John 3:5 mockers on this blog. Could there have been priests who wrote academic pieces who were heretics on the 1880s to 1950s. Of course! This is what paved the way for Vatican II.

      Pope Pius X issued a warning in the encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis which dealt with The Modernists already infecting The Church and there were so many books already out there with imprimaturs containing heresy, that banning them all was not possible.

      Church teaching over Fallible Teachers

      Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

      Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: “It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations.” 

      Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’” 


      St. Bernard, Tractatus de baptismo, II, 8, c. 1130: “So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose.  I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by faith alone, provided he desires to receive the sacrament, in a case where death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire, or some other invincible power stands in his way.”

      Saint Bernard was torn on this issue of BOD. Saint Augustine recanted his position. Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus only taught explicit baptism of desire while knowing the essential mysteries. They were great Saints, but they were all fallible men. The heretics who write on this blog believe Scientologists, Mormons, and Richard Dawkins might actually be Catholics. The Saints never taught that. Geocentrism was also taught de fide. The Immaculate Conception was explicitly not taught by great Saints, including Saint Thomas.

      Also, 1917 code of canon law is not infallible, nor is The Pope Pius X Catechism only promulgated in Italy and not even written by The Pope. Modernist theologians from the 1950s and 1960s who write about “The Soul of The Church Heresy” and BoD are not the UOM or “Catholic Scholars” but heretics. The Dimonds destroy The Michael Dubay argument used by False Traditionalists like Introibo and Speray. Fallible men are not the ultimate authority on The Church. They can and have been wrong. Popes said Saint Thomas writings are safe but does that mean you believe his error on The Immaculate Conception contained in The Summa?

      Delete
    12. Steve Speray

      Anyone who watches that debate knows you believe that Non-Catholics and depraved atheists like Hitchens can be saved in false religions or as Christ rejecting atheists. That debate shows all the lies that you spread no matter how many lame excuses you made on The Catholic Family Podcast. Heretics like you and Introibo like to have written debates so you can try to hide all your heresies in your pages of gibberish. But true Catholics see your lies for what they are and you and Introibo would be stuttering and your positions shown to be utterly false when your gobbledygook is questioned as you say it in a recorded debate. Speray you are a scandal to The Catholic Faith and you lost that debate without question.

      Delete
    13. at Anonymous February 28, 2024 at 12:21 PM: You quote 5 authorities who all believed in BOB and BOB: Benedict XIV supported the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius X promulgated his catechism which taught BOD, Pope Pius XII explicitly taught BOD to his letter to midwives, and St. Bernard taught in Tractatus de baptismo, II, 8, c. 1130:

      “So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by faith alone, provided he desires to receive the sacrament, in a case where death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire, or some other invincible power stands in his way.” Quoted by Fr. Jean Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 37.

      Canon law is infallible and the Pius X catechism could not be promulgated if it were heretical. YOU BLASPHEME CHRIST because you accuse the Catholic Church of promulgated an error against the faith. Sorry, but you are not Catholic at all!!!!

      To AnonymousFebruary 28, 2024 at 12:46 PM:

      The only gobbledygook is your emotional comment which has no real substance. Where's the argument?
      I take it a badge of honor to be told that I'm a scandal from a person like you who hates the truth.

      Delete
    14. Anon 12:21,

      You say, "We must go by the far greater authority, the proximate rule of Faith." I quoted you a Pope's catechism. He's teaching to the whole world through his catechism (anybody can get their hand on it) Baptism of desire. He's the highest authority.

      Here are some more popes (the highest authority) who teach it since you bring it up:

      Pope Innocent III:
      "To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession on the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eight book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written, Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt but death excludes. Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned." Denzinger #388

      Pope Pius IX:
      The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation UNLESS he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

      Are these popes along with St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Pius X (his catechism) heretics, liars, with devils coming out of their mouths?

      Would the Pharisaical Anon 12:46 like to comment to the these pope's gobbledygook?

      Lee

      Delete
    15. Typo: Innocent III not IIII

      Lee

      Delete
  9. Hey Introibo. Question for you: Do you agree with Steven Speray that infants can attain eternal life without being baptized in water?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samurai Blogger,
      That is not Steve's position. I'll let him comment here later tonight to set the record straight.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have made it abundantly clear on my website and in my books that I believe infants must be baptized to be saved. However, I most certainly do believe unbaptized infants who are martyred will attain eternal life and see God. So in that sense, I do believe infants can attain eternal life without being baptized in water. I'm in good company, too, because all of the Fathers of Trent also believed it as you can read in the acts of Trent.

      Delete
    3. With all due respect, this is a position a Catholic may not hold. The church teaches that the only remedy for infants is the sacrament of baptism. Every human person under the age of reason has to receive the sacrament of baptism in order to obtain heaven.

      Delete
    4. @anon7:09
      According to theologian Ott:
      "As according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (Feast of the Holy Innocents), young children can also receive blood-baptism."
      (See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," [1955], pg. 357).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Introibo - Unfortunately, Steven Speray does believe infants can be saved "in a mystery at death that we don't see or understand." He does not believe water baptism or even martyrdom is necessary for them to be saved. And I will send the emails to prove it.

      Do you agree with Steven's definition of BOD as God "saving man in a mystery at death in a way we don't see or understand"?

      Delete
    6. Samurai Blogger,
      I know what Steve believes. He and I are personal friends. He does not think baptism is superfluous; sure, cite his emails and he will respond. Again, Steve's expression is true if properly understood, which you do not so understand.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo: The holy innocents died before the sacramental laws were in place so this does not work. They were specifically murdered in order to protect the person of Christ. However, the church teaches that there is no other remedy for them other than the sacrament. You cannot hold that position. Basically everywhere you look that teaches BOD and BOB will say that it does not apply to those under the age of reason.

      Delete
    8. All theologians taught babies can be saved by BOB.

      According to theologian Ott:
      "As according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (Feast of the Holy Innocents), young children can also receive blood-baptism."
      (See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," [1955], pg. 357).

      Let me know if you would like more citations from approved theologians. I’ll be home tonight with access to my library.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. You both actually believe infants can attain eternal life without water baptism. You confirmed that you believe this, which I was not aware of, and so it makes sense why you and Mr. Speray are such good friends. Here is the literal contradiction Steven espoused right here in the comments:

      Steven Speray: "I have made it abundantly clear on my website and in my books that I believe infants must be baptized to be saved. However, I most certainly do believe unbaptized infants who are martyred will attain eternal life and see God."

      So infants "must be baptized to be saved" and then immediately after that "I ... do believe UNBAPTIZED infants who are martyred will attain eternal life and see God." So "must" for Steven does not mean "must". He does not believe water baptism is a necessity of means for infants, which is what I stated he believes. He boldly admits this, and then you join him. He says infants "must" be water baptized, then admits he believes some of them do not need to be water baptized. This is demonic double-talk.

      Both of you reject the dogmatic teaching of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers that infants cannot attain eternal life without water baptism.

      Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

      “…do not let them affirm that infants who died unbaptized can possibly reach eternal life and the kingdom of heaven by the remission of original sin in any other way whatever;” -St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, Book I, Chapter 34.

      St. Augustine says there is no "other way whatever" for infants to attain eternal life than baptism and you and Steven boldly assert there is, martyrdom. Suddenly, what the Fathers and Popes is of little concern for you. You'll quote some 18th or 20th century theologian who speculated that maybe martyrdom could suffice instead of holding fast to what the Popes, the councils, and the Fathers teach on this topic. And for Steven, it's actually worse; for he believes that God can save infants in any way, even ways totally unknown to us, outside of baptism and martyrdom.

      Here is an email exchange I had with Mr. Speray regarding this point:

      Me: Lastly, as a bit of a tangential issue, if God can do this (save them in a mystery we don’t see or understand) for adults, why can’t He do it for infants? You seem to say that God can ONLY save babies by water baptism or martyrdom. But if “God can save man in a mystery at death that we don’t see or understand”, then why can’t He do that for unbaptized and unmartyred babies? Are you saying God cannot do that, or will not do that? Are you saying God is limited to only being able to use water baptism or martyrdom to save infants?

      Speray: Well, if we don’t understand how He does it for adults, I don’t know how I can say I know how He might do it for infants, although He may very well save some of them for some reason or way we don’t know. What I do know is that after Trent defined the necessity of baptism, the same fathers at Trent debated over the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved by other means. Half of them believed that the desire of the parents with a pronouncement of the Holy Trinity can save an unbaptized infant.

      -----

      So here, Steven boldly admits that God may even save infants in a way unknown to us that is not water baptism or martyrdom. Do you share in that belief Introibo?

      Delete
    10. Samurai Blogger,
      I’ll let Steve address the alleged email exchange and explain himself. That BOB is efficacious for infant salvation is Church teaching. As far as current theologians; how about this teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:
      “ Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. ”
      See Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. Introibo: You say “that BOB is efficacious for infant salvation is church teaching.” This implies those who deny this are heretics. I would like you to read Mario Derksen’s article here:

      https://novusordowatch.org/2019/01/francis-vs-pius12-aborted-infants/

      Are you going to ask Mario Derksen to retract for teaching heresy? He believes the dogma that infants who do not die without the sacrament of baptism do not enter heaven, but limbo, which is a place in hell where there is happiness and no suffering, but there is no beatific vision. It seems as if Steven Speray and yourself do not assent to this teaching. So you would have to say that Mario made an error and therefore should retract, or you are incorrect and must retract your statements.

      In charity…

      Delete
    12. @anon8:46
      Mario Derksen is 100% correct. Aborted babies are not saved by BOB. You don’t understand Church teaching. To receive BOB is to die a martyr. Therefore, the baby would have to be killed with an “odium Fidei” (hated for the Faith). So, if an unbaptized baby of Catholic parents were to be kidnapped by Satan worshippers and they killed the baby TO SHOW THEIR HATRED FOR CHRIST AND CATHOLIC FAMILIES, then he would receive BOB. I wrote an entire post on the subject:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/03/are-aborted-babies-martyrs.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. To Samurai Blogger: Normal and sensible people don't place an absolute meaning to every word. We use words like must, necessity, all, etc. but in a general sense, too. Theologians make the distinction between necessity of precept and necessity of means as one example. When we say something is necessary, we don't not have to mean it absolutely. Even Christ uses hyperbole and in John 3:5, he was talking about ordinary circumstances. When popes, doctors, etc. teach baptism of desire, they will mention John 3:5. The Roman Catechism references John 3:5 many times and then teaches Baptism of Desire.

      To answer the email, you want to make the proper distinction again, this time between what is permitted to believe and what individuals such as myself believe. The email you cited shows that half of the Fathers of Trent believed that unbaptized infants could be saved apart from martyrdom. They said so and voted on it after the definitions on baptism in sessions 6 and 7. That's a fact. Because it was permitted to believe, I can easily say "I don’t know how I can say I know how He might do it for infants, although He may very well save some of them for some reason or way we don’t know" because I'm giving the permitted theory the benefit of the doubt. Not that I actually hold the position myself.

      Another example is St. Alphonsus who personally believed explicit faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, but he also taught that implicit faith is a 'sufficiently probable' opinion. See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/06/11/st-alphonsus-liguori-taught-heresy/

      To address the quote from St. Augustine, it was his opinion, but because most other doctors and theologians disagreed with Augustine's opinion, there's nothing wrong to disagree with Augustine. Keep in mind that Pope Alexander VIII condemned: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”

      As for Carthage, it wasn 't making an absolute across the board teaching as if there were no exceptions whatsoever. Again, you reject nuances and senses to teachings. That's why I provided the Father's of Trent who also did not intend an absolute across the board teaching with no exceptions. If they did, then could not have accepted and voted for those exceptions after the fact. The same goes with Our Lord in John 3:5.

      As for Mario, we don't disagree, but because you don't understand nuances and how things can be rendered, you think there's contradictions, etc., which is one the major problems with Feeneyism. You're bent on making everything mean the way you want it to mean and not how it was intended to mean.

      Making proper distinctions is what all of this is about; opinions and dogmas, universal and non-universal laws, internal forum and external forum, and absolute meanings and general meanings. Once you get the distinctions right, everything falls in place. As long as you insist on your personal interpretation, popes contradict popes, saints contradict dogmas, the Church promulgates heresy, and Our Lord becomes the puppet god of Calvinists.

      Feeneyism is a diabolocal heresy and unless you break free from it, you'll find yourself in a world of total and complete contradiction. You become your own final authority, which is ultimately Antichrist!

      Delete
    14. For Introibo and Mr. Speray:

      Is it your claim then, that in reality and truth, water baptism is not the singular/only means of obtaining eternal life for infants?

      Delete
    15. Samurai Blogger,
      I claim nothing. The CHURCH teaches that infants can be saved by (a) baptism of water or (b) baptism of blood. Baptism of desire does not apply to infants.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. I deleted my last comment because I did not see you had already answered my question. Thank you for answering.

      Introibo, are you saying the Church teaches infallibly that God is bound and limited to only being able to save infants via two means: A) water baptism, or B) Martyrdom without baptism? And if so, is it heresy to claim that infants only have one means of obtaining eternal life, the sacrament of water baptism?

      Is it impossible for God to save infants in any other way?

      Delete
    18. Follow up to this point to Introibo and Mr. Speray:

      Can we "hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those [infants] who were unable to receive the sacrament.”?

      Or is such a statement heresy?

      Delete
    19. to Samurai Blogger: What do you think of the Words of Our Lord when He said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things [men] to myself."? and Pope Pius XI states, "He is King of hearts, too, by reason of his “charity which exceedeth all knowledge.” And his mercy and kindness[1] which draw all men to him, for never has it been known, nor will it ever be, that man be loved so much and so universally as Jesus Christ."

      Pope Pius XII: It is also a mystery of the love of the Most Holy Trinity and of the divine Redeemer towards all men.... It is beyond doubt, then, that His heavenly Father “Who spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,”[93] when appealed to with such loving urgency by so powerful an Advocate, will, through Him, send down on all men an abundance of divine graces." and "While still on earth, He instructed us by precept, counsel and warning in words that shall never pass away, and will be spirit and life to all men of all times."

      What say you?



      Delete
    20. Samurai Blogger,
      I know from Church teaching that God can save infants via Baptism by water and by Blood. I know infants cannot be saved by Baptism of Desire, as the Church also teaches. Has the Church definitively cut off any other means God can employ? To the best of my knowledge and belief, I don't think so. Whether or not God does so, is known but to Him, unless/until the papacy is restored and a true pope makes that decision.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    21. Introibo, with respect, you don't seem to be answering my exact question.

      Since you believe the Church teaches infants can be saved without water baptism via martyrdom, is it therefore heresy for someone to believe that infants can ONLY be saved by water baptism?

      Mr. Speray, are you using those quotes to mean that God can and does save infants without water baptism and without martyrdom as well?

      Delete
  10. I am reminded of how, back in 2016, scientists first captured images of the flash of light generated at the moment a human spermatozoon makes contact with a human ovum, immortalizing the "point of no return" moment in which the new zygote is transformed by the hand of God into a human embryo. See: sciencealert.com/scientists-just-captured-the-actual-flash-of-light-that-sparks-when-sperm-meets-an-egg

    ReplyDelete
  11. We never knew how much harm to souls the Dimonds have done by misleading info and lies by their Feeney garbage.
    We know of one family over in New Zealand who fell for them and have a diabolical hatred for folk who don't agree with them. They pushed an extreme protestant view on the subjects of divine election , exclusive salvation and predestined souls. We expect the family who made the above comment from Wanganui will know of them . They were barred from the SSPX church there . The wife has hissy fits and writes volumes of garbage with very insulting comments both to clergy and lay people .

    A family in Australia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A family in Australia,
      Fred and Bobby Dimond are leading many to perdition. You explain the typical behavior of Feeneyites; they have a "sickness of soul," as Steve Speray says.

      So glad to have readers from "Down Under" commenting!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. +JMJ
    WOW. A dynamite writing on the errors and lies of Bobby and Fred. Just typical response of insults from them .The so-called Benedictines, ha , ha , ha . Keep up the fine work Introibo and Steven .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:33
      Hope you enjoy ADDENDUM II just added ! We will keep "fighting the good fight"!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Question for Introibo and Speray: is it heresy to say that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:29
      Of course not. We profess that just like the approved theologians. Here are but two examples:

      Theologian Ott: "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation" (See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," [1955], pg. 356).
      On the same page:"In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood."

      Theologian Tanquerey: "Baptism of water is necessary for all by necessity of Divine precept." (See "A Manual of Dogmatic Theology," [1959], 2:226). On pg. 228, "Contrition, or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins."

      How could these be "innocent mistakes" of theological giants? They would be heretics--and crazy ones--who don't see intrinsic contradictions in their own writings. So we can believe with the Church, or believe with two men who like to play "Benedictine" and have no theological training or secular education beyond high school.

      Steve and I stand with the Church!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. This is definitely a case of trying to fit the square peg of Feeneyism into the round hole of Catholicism. A true Thomist would question patently defective major premises such as "the UOM has settled the question of delayed ensoulment." I hate to say it, but it really does seem that, on an intellectual level, the Dimonds probably peaked in grade school. Sad to be them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:34
      It is incredibly sad for them. Sometimes I wonder if they actually believe the nonsense they write, or if they just like the notoriety. Thanks you for commenting!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. 44 comments in 48 hours lol

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dimond and their hypocritical followers acknowledge a baptized Catholic's possibility of salvation if... a Catholic is in mortal sin and is unable to get to confession in time before his/her death so long as they are granted the grace of perfect contrition and make such an act.

    This means they acknowledge and believe to be true that it is possible for a soul in mortal sin to be saved WITHOUT the necessary means to get them absolved which happens only through the sacrament of confession.

    How is it that they can easily see that God can make use of another means to be saved apart from the necessary use of a sacrament if such a case would occur but they refuse to acknowledge the same reasoning for how Baptism of Desire and Blood? Totally hypocritical.

    Also their video on magicians all being possessed or working powers from Satan is not well researched because the very magicians performing such tricks that they criticize such as David Blaine, Dynamo, etc. are explained naturally on other youtube videos through out the internet. One could say they are personally wicked people but to say they work supernatural powers from Satan when most of it can be explained is shallow.

    Besides this, they reject Our Lady's role as Co-Redempotrix, when pope after pope addressed her as such.

    While they may have good videos exposing certain things, they are overall a danger to souls in reference to teaching Catholicism. Over the years, they have attracted a certain crowd of people who think and act exactly as they do. I've met and been around a few and they are the most miserable and aggressive individuals. They are like the Calvinists who have this idea they they are the elect and the rest of mankind is on their way to hell no matter what. They suffer a serious God complex and it's very unfortunate that they cannot break their minds from an excessive pride.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  17. To be fair to Brother Peter Dimond, he is telling the truth that their position on the "Una Cum Mass" has never been that it's inherently a mortal sin to attend (see: https://vaticancatholic.com/mass-confession-sacraments/). They have been critical of Catholics who try to impose the idea that it's inherently a mortal sin to attend such Masses, and rightfully so. Their guidelines on Mass attendence revolves more around their idea of traditional priests "imposing their heresies". Outside of their rampant Feeneyism, their guidelines are fairly reasonable.

    I was honestly surprised to find their articles defending "Una Cum Mass" attendance, but they articulate a lot of the excellent points that you have brought up in your own writings on the subject, especially the citation to canon law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sneedevacantist,
      I honestly apologized and retracted anything I wrote to the contrary if I was wrong. It seemed as such, and I should have researched further. Mea culpa.

      Bobby and Fred have enough going on with their Feeneyism and finding "heresies" in Van Noort, "innocent mistakes" in St. Alphonsus, Periodic continence being "wrong," etc. that I need not make things up. They stand condemned on their own demerits! Thank you for commenting and correcting me in charity.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. No problem Introibo, happy to help!

      To be honest, I was shocked that the Dimonds are not anti-Una Cum given the other hardline stances they take in regard to where to go to Mass at. But then again, they have always been okay (with some stipulations) with people going to Eastern Catholic churches where their rites and ordinations have not been tampered with post-VII, so it wouldn't make sense for them to ever be anti-Una Cum since the Eastern Catholic liturgies are all Una Cum (minus the tiny minority that are openly Sede).

      I also find it infuriating to read their double standard on how wrong teaching BOD is with St Alphonsus vs Van Noort. Since they argue that BOD in all forms is a heresy that denies the necessity of water baptism, and that the necessity of water baptism has always been taught as a dogma, how could the two theologians not both be heretics? Does canonization and/or being designated as a doctor of the Church somehow "baptize" a saint's "heretical teachings" into being "mere mistakes"? If that's the case, the Vatican II sect defenders should get excited because they now have a precedent that they can operate on to defend the heresies of their Nopes! Notorious public heretics can be saints! So much for EENS...

      Delete
  18. 3 OF 4

    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). 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’. 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. The translations we currently post are high quality translations (made available for free). We hope that people appreciate them. So, after I corrected your erroneous attempt at translating part of the passage, you have come back with a ‘brand new’ translation from an alleged Latin expert. But what he has come up with is just flat out wrong. Allow me to educate you:

    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.

    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).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby!!!
      You can't get enough of a quality blog on the truth of the Catholic Faith, can you? See Addendum III above!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  19. 4 OF 4

    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.

    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.” You are a very blind person. 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. 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. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby!!!
      You can't get enough of a quality blog on the truth of the Catholic Faith, can you? See Addendum III above!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I followed the Dimonds when I first learned of Sede's. This is who they grab. They rank high on the search engines, and when people fall out of the NO they search google and get sucked in to their heresies. I found out they were wrong by, get this, reading catechisms and dictionaries and Trent. Easy, peasy.
      Their lack of humility and full of pride is really all anyone needs to know they are not men of God.

      Delete
    3. Dimonds are actually right when it comes to the translation. The translation provided to you by your “Latinist” is very wrong.

      Delete
    4. @anon2:04
      As my Latinist has not replied, I’m prepared to fully conced his translation as correct. I’m not infallible but the Church is, and Bobby rejects Her teachings.

      1. Using HIS translation, it is a POSITION COMMONLY ACCEPTED TODAY. That it is merely common opinion undecided by the Church is taught by the theologians; notably theologians O’Donnell. McCarthy, and Carol. According to the Church’s own standard, the UOM never taught delayed ensoulment as infallible.

      2. He never responds to his major blunder in the meaning of Canon 1, and how canonists Abbo and Hannon (writing in English) prove his translation of Canon 1 wrong, and Canon 737 on BOD applied to ALL CATHOLICS AS A MATTER OF FAITH. He never even attempted a reply!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Quite right, whichever translation is correct, it still refutes the Dimonds’ position!

      Delete
  20. One thing I've noticed about Feeneyites over all my years on the Internet is a similar demeanor:

    - An unwavering confidence bordering on arrogance, particularly when it comes to painting over fine theological distinctions with the broad brush of dogma (and vice-versa) when it's not appropriate;

    - An impulsive yet unyielding instinct to anathematize anyone who disagrees with them, branding others as heretics even when pertinacity has not been established;

    - An almost unnerving instinct to condemn those who disagree with them as hellbound, even to the point of condemning those who (in a true sense of Catholic charity) desire that those who were publicly non-Catholic nonetheless were gifted the supernatural graces to convert prior to their death.

    And this mentality is practically omnipresent (down to similarities in grammar used!), with little to no variances.

    Is it just me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 9:53,

      Why do you have to be heretic, a liar, possessed-with devils coming out of your mouth, a buffoon who doesn't know latin like I know it or who even knows what he is talking aobut, a sycophant, a mouthpiece of Satan, an anti-Christ, an apostate, a John 3:5 mocker, a loser to debates that happen to be mere phone conversations, or a person who comes to this website when nobody reads or cares to come to this website except a couple people that are within their own echo chamber?

      Don't you realize all the "Catholic" faith can be found on the youtube Vatican Catholic channel where all diabolical possessed people get exposed and the most humble Benedictine bros. shred everything apart ?

      BTW, I'm just kidding.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Anonymous February 29, 2024 at 9:53 AM

      because it is a cult. it is not just you.

      Delete
  21. FINAL RESPONSE 1 OF 3

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

    I’ll make a few concluding points (and then I must move on). With regard Abbo and Hannon and canon 1, you are wrong and their citation doesn’t prove anything for you. All it shows is that they believed that ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching that applies to the Oriental Church. Yes, we know; and they were wrong. The refutation of the argument you are making was covered in the video, but I’ll state it again here briefly in a slightly different manner. It is rather simple. Canon 1 makes it clear that something doesn’t bind the Oriental Church from its mere inclusion in the Code. Rather, there must be something about “the nature itself of the thing” that attaches to the Oriental Church. Thus, the applicability to the Oriental Church comes from “the nature itself of the thing”, NOT FROM INCLUSION IN THE CODE. Well, error/false doctrine doesn’t have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). Error does not apply to or bind anyone. THIS IS THE KEY POINT. ‘Baptism of desire’ is an error, a novelty, which contradicts the Church’s dogmatic teaching on John 3:5 (and other truths on Church membership, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, Church unity, etc.). Therefore, it does not have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). People like you will reply by stating: no, ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching and therefore applies to the Oriental Church. You are wrong, but to show that it’s true (not false), and therefore applicable to the Oriental Church “from the nature itself of the thing” (not from inclusion in the Code), you have to prove it from something other than the Code (because, as per canon 1, mere inclusion in the Code does not make something binding on the Oriental Church). But you cannot show that ‘baptism of desire’ is true and applicable to the Oriental Church from things outside the Code. On the contrary, we can show that it’s false. Thus, your argument fails. It’s logically refuted. God protected the Church from teaching the false doctrine of baptism of desire when canon 1 disclaimed that all of its canons were universally binding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby!!!
      You just can't get enough of a quality blog! Back for more!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  22. FINAL RESPONSE 2 OF 3

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

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby!!!
      You just can't get enough of a quality blog! Back for more!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  23. FINAL RESPONSE 3 OF 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEQWkfjA2cA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby!!!
      You just can't get enough of a quality blog! Back for more!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. See my answer: Post of 3/4/24

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Your article is a joke. You have no business writing about these matters, wretch.

      Delete
    4. Jacopo,
      Bobby and Fred are qualified to write about these matters? Now THAT'S FUNNY!

      Praying for your conversion,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  24. An very interesting response to the Dimonds . It would seem that only you over in the USA have this problem with Traditional Catholics who listen to the Dimonds and reject BOB/BOD . This problem is unheard of here in Asia . Why do you think this is Introibo? All Traditional Catholics at Traditional Mass centers under SSPX , CMRI and Sanborn accept this teaching .

    God bless

    Timothy
    Brisbane , Australia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Timothy,
      In my opinion (and that's all it is--one layman's opinion), Catholics in the United States were exposed to myriad religions, especially after WWII. That allowed a false conception of BOD to be pushed by some clergy. Feeney reacted with an opposite error. Bobby and Fred revived it like never before in the wake of heretical "religious liberty" spread by Vatican II and the sect it spawned.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  25. Thank you very much Introibo for taking the time, and I'm sure a lot of time, in unraveling the sophistry of these heretics! This is long overdue and so many Catholics have been ensnared by them already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:38
      Thank you, my friend! Stay tuned for Monday's post, as Bobby gets exposed some more!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  26. Timothy
    We too are here in Australia and yes rejecting BOB/BOD is unheard of here. We are well aware of the two uneducated folk who think they are experts in theology over in Wanganui who have been spreading their poison and rubbish for years . They are both bitter and have fits of anger at anyone who does not agree with them .You have done a excellent expose Introibo and Steven. Well done . Prayers for you both .

    J.T

    ReplyDelete
  27. Great work Introibo, Steven, and Lee. Feeneyites, Novus Ordites, Indultarians, and R&Rers all hold to the belief that the Church can teach or promulgate error. For this reason, you can never convince them of anything since whatever point you propose that rebuts their position is simply another instance of the Church being in error.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      Very true! I received your second comment (which I didn't publish) and thank you very much for your kind offer.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  28. American SedeprivationistMarch 2, 2024 at 7:20 PM

    Newish argument, or rather forgotten argument, against Feeneyism?

    Fr. Cekada (RIP): "The heretics who denied baptism of desire were opposed by the Doctor and Father of the Church, St. Bernard of Clarivaux (ob. 1153), whom Sol also quotes."

    The heretics in question were either the Henricians or Petrobrusians (still researching this matter), condemned by the Church. Instead of being loyal sons of the Church, the Feeneyites agree with condemned heretics rather than a doctor of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. American Sedeprivationist,
      Excellent!! Thank you for that citation!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  29. Greetings. I would like to thank Introibo and those who write here for their contributions and comments because I consider them very interesting. I would like to intervene in the discussion about baptism of desire, but out of ignorance I would only bother with my interventions. I wanted to ask something, if you don't mind. I found a video in French of a group of lay people of the Church - known to you as "Novus Ordo" - that aims to refute Sedevacantism with papal quotes. I would like, if you please, for someone to watch this video, not very long, that responds to the objections to religious freedom raised by Sedevacantism - English subtitles -:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sV95YGM4ljA

    I don't know if what is stated here is correct, which is why I am asking for help. Of course, if you don't mind seeing it. I don't want to bother you with my nonsense either.

    Thank you.

    Young reader from Spain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Young Reader From Spain,
      No problem. I'll respond back here by Wednesday, March 6 at latest.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much!

      Young reader from Spain

      Delete
    3. Young Reader From Spain,

      Please give me some more time. Work has been rough.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. I hope you don't mind my "barging in" ;-)

      The authors of that video claim that religious liberty as understood by Vatican II in the Declaration "Dignitates Humanae" can be reconciled with previous teaching of the One True Church through "hermeneutic of continuity". This is false because:
      1.) according to Vatican II the right to religious liberty is based on the dignity of the human person rather than the authority of God which is an entirely novel teaching - this would mean that the source of that right is the human person and NOT God Who truly is the Supreme Law-giver and He alone has the right to be worshipped the way He wants to be - for this reason He revealed to mankind the true religion which is found in the Catholic Church alone;

      2.) Dignitates Humanae speaks of the right to the public worship of any religion and demands that this right is to be recognized by civil governments - this proposition was condemned by Pius IX in Quanta Cura who censored those who:
      “fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted), the insanity (deliramentum) (Encyclical 13 August 1832): namely, “that liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law”.

      Theologian Connell (peritus at Vatican II who clashed with John C. Murray - the actual author of Dignitates Humanae) writes in the American Ecclesiastical Review, Issue 109 (1943):

      "Beyond doubt, the expression "freedom of worship " is ordinarily understood by our non-Catholic fellow-citizens, when they advocate the "four freedoms,” in the sense that every one has a natural God-given right to accept and to practice whatever form of religion appeals to him individually. No Catholic can in conscience defend such an idea of freedom of religious worship. For, according to Catholic principles, the only religion that has a right to exist is the religion that God revealed and made obligatory on all men; hence, man has a natural and God-given freedom to embrace only the true religion. One who sincerely believes himself bound to practice some form of non-Catholic religion is in conscience obliged to do so; but this subjective obligation, based on an erroneous conscience, does not give him a genuine right. A real right is something objective based on truth. Accordingly, a Catholic may not defend freedom of religious worship to the extent of denying that a Catholic government has the right, absolutely speaking, to restrict the activities of non-Catholic denominations in order to protect the Catholic citizens from spiritual harm."

      The Modernists (like the ones who authored Vatican II and that video) would have us believe that this is just "doctrinal development" but doctrine cannot change from one meaning to another. It's not just "ambiguity" although that's a favorite tool of the Modernist. Dignitates Humanae is heretical to the core.

      God Bless You,
      Joanna

      Delete
    5. Joanna,
      I can't improve on your answer! Please "barge in" anytime.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Thank you very much, dear Joanna and Introibo! How kind of you, thank you for your patience!

      Young reader from Spain

      Delete
  30. Good afternoon, Introibo. An off topic question and comment. Since I live in NYC and don't drive, my access to a true traditional Mass is limited. A priest from the CMRI suggested that I attend Mass at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of La Salette in Bayside Queens. I went there last week and had my first Confession and Communion. Do you know anything about them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cyrus Daniel,
      Please ask that CMRI priest what he knows about the clergy at present. Personally, I would stay away. I have never found and information on who ordained these clergymen and what, exactly, are their theological positions. Their bishop, Jesse Milagrosa, was arrested for sexually abusing a 12 year old boy. He admitted to having oral and anal contact with the child.

      I'm also from NYC. You are better off taking the LIRR to LI and attend the SSPV, even if it's only once or twice a month. Find out their episcopal orders, and where they stand theologically with sedevacantism. If they don't tell you, I'd personally stay away. Speaking for myself, I'd stay away because of that bishop. Did they hide it? Lord, have mercy. Here's the story:

      https://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/sexual-assault-by-bayside-bishop-da/article_3287b15b-4dbe-5d7a-a1c9-3c8362ce8380.html

      Good luck and God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Is the Ave Maria chapel in Long Island still active?
      Bishop Markus Ramolla and Fr.Marcellus Moylan are open to traveling for various groups of faithful if enough men and women are interested in hosting them for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Recently,Fr Moylan went to South Africa for 7 days. They have small Missions in New Mexico,Georgia,and Indiana.

      God bless,
      Andrew

      Delete
    3. Hi Introibo, I reached out to one of the priests at La Salette. He said both he and the other priest at the Sanctuary were ordained by Bishop Andres Morello and that they are sedevacantists. He also said that Bishop Milagrosa was never found guilty of the alleged crime (he died before the initial court date). Fr. Andrew said these were false accusations. I hope this helps.

      Delete
    4. I tried to look up on internet as to what happened to Bp Milagrosa after being charged. Crickets. No more headlines. Does anyone know what happened in regard to the charges? Was he convicted? I know someone in Queens struggling to find a local Mass.

      Delete
    5. Cyrus Daniel and Tom,
      Ok. In my personal opinion (and that's all it is, my opinion which you are free to accept or reject), here's what I think:

      1. I am satisfied as to the validity of the priest's orders. Bp. Morello was ordained a priest by Abp. Lefebvre. He was consecrated by Bp. Neville who was ordained a priest by Abp. Lefebvre and consecrated by Bp. Robert McKenna. Very good.

      2. The priests are sedevacantists. Excellent.

      3. Was Bp. Milagrosa really innocent? I have serious reservation about that. All reports I read claim the Queens County District Attorney had a tape the abused boy made wherein the bishop admitted his wrongdoing. It is further alleged that upon his arrest the Bp. admitted to "anal and oral contact" with a minor. He died before he could go to trial.

      If you believe he's innocent and want to go, that's a matter of conscience for you. Personally, I would not, unless there is a lot of explanation about Bp. Milagrosa and equal explanation as to why they don't make his story and presumed innocence public.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  31. I've no who's in Heaven or Purgatory. I pray for the dead,the sick,dying,and Conversion of non-Catholics. If someone asked what she or he must do to save their Soul,I would say without hesitation,he or she must get baptized and become traditional Catholic.
    God is loving and merciful,it is possible a dying sick Soul could convert on their deathbed via perfect contrition.
    This type of theology is over my head.
    Would I be classified as a heretic,sincerely,in all due respect?

    God bless,
    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Nothing heretical. We do not know the state of anyone's soul except for canonized saints, and Judas who was damned. We must pray for the dead exactly as you stated.

      Everything in your comment is perfectly Catholic.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  32. Thank you for engaging the Dimond Brothers in debate. This is the only way they can be conquered. 🙏🙏🙏

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:07
      Thank you! I agree, so let's make this post and my post of 3/4/24 as widely read as possible!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete