The Four Temperaments---Melancholic (Part I)

To My Readers: I have received several requests for posts on the subject of The Four Temperaments. This week's post is the second installment to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by the end of 2024, I will have done some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. 

I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection (1913).  Also, the work of theologian Hock The Four Temperaments (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take absolutely no credit whatsoever for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for  those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject. 

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

The Melancholic Temperament--Part I

If there is a temperament with very unfortunate characteristics, it is certainly the melancholic. Externally this temperament manifests but slight receptibility. Apparently the melancholic seems to remain unmoved. He manifests no emotion. He appears to be very indifferent to the external world, to everything that goes on around him. But, in his imagination he construes an interior world, the ideals of which cannot be realized. He is both slow and obstinate. This obstinancy causes him to be very tenacious of his own opinions. He is never contented. Being a severe censor of morals, he fails to discover anything good in others. 

Naturally, he is uncongenial. In consequence of this, he exhibits great and constant irritability. It is, therefore, not surprising that he is inclined to be suspicious of others. He is apt to offend others by imagining they have something against him, or are dissatisfied with him, or, perhaps, are opposed to him. He is convinced that he is misjudged. This causes him to be distant and possibly offensive in his intercourse. His fondness for solitude inclines him to singularity. In consequence, he is reserved and wholly engrossed in himself. 

When offended or in case he imagines an affront has been offered him, he becomes vindictive. He nourishes hatred and aversion. He desires to revenge himself. At the same time he is capable of bestowing the most ardent friendship on some, individually, to the complete exclusion of all others. He may become a prey to vehement passions. But these he will conceal in his interior. He may secretly indulge in vice. He possesses an unreasonable self-conceit. He fosters within himself an over-estimation of superiority. This readily leads him to despise others.

The characteristic trait of this temperament is a moderate sadness. It is tranquil in action. It is profound in all undertakings. It possesses weight and maturity in judgment. Father Schram and theologians in general admit that every truly great, wise, and prudent man has evinced traits of this temperament. Nay, in advancing years those may attain these characteristics who, in youth were endowed with a choleric temperament. Such persons are well suited to become good advisers, prudent leaders and men of learning. If such become devoted to the spiritual life they are apt to excel and become masters, owing to their prudence and discretion.

The melancholic loves the sublime and terrific. He delights in the supernatural. He loves contemplation. Thus the pursuit and practise of virtue is for him an agreeable task. He will earnestly strive after solid virtue. His ardent mind is easily convinced that God is the only and true Good. He therefore yields himself to the service of God with all the ardor of which this temperament is capable. The direction of this temperament must, above all, be considerate and circumspect.

Characteristics of the Melancholic Temperament

The melancholic person is but feebly excited by whatever acts upon him. The reaction is weak, but this feeble impression remains for a long time and by subsequent similar impressions grows stronger and at last excites the mind so vehemently that it is difficult to eradicate it.

Such impression may be compared to a post, which by repeated strokes is driven deeper and deeper into the ground, so that at last it is hardly possible to pull it out again. This propensity of the melancholic needs special attention. It serves as a key to solve the many riddles in his behavior.

Fundamental Disposition of the Melancholic

1. Inclination to reflection. The thinking of the melancholic easily turns into reflection. The thoughts of the melancholic are far-reaching. He dwells with pleasure upon the past and is preoccupied by occurrences of the long ago; he is penetrating; is not satisfied with the superficial, searches for the cause and correlation of things; seeks the laws which affect human life, the principles according to which man should act. His thoughts are of a wide range; he looks ahead into the future; ascends to the eternal. The melancholic is of an extremely soft-hearted disposition.

His very thoughts arouse his own sympathy and are accompanied by a mysterious longing. Often they stir him up profoundly, particularly religious reflections or plans which he cherishes; yet he hardly permits his fierce excitement to be noticed outwardly. The untrained melancholic is easily given to brooding and to day-dreaming.

2. Love of retirement. The melancholic does not feel at home among a crowd for any length of time; he loves silence and solitude. Being inclined to introspection he secludes himself from the crowds, forgets his environment, and makes poor use of his senses -eyes, ears, etc. In company he is often distracted, because he is absorbed by his own thoughts. By reason of his lack of observation and his dreaming the melancholic person has many a mishap in his daily life and at his work.

3. Serious conception of life. The melancholic looks at life always from the serious side. At the core of his heart there is always a certain sadness, "a weeping of the heart," not because the melancholic is sick or morbid, as many claim, but because he is penneated with a strong longing for an ultimate good (God) and eternity and feels continually hampered by earthly and temporal affairs and impeded in his carvings. The melancholic is a stranger here below and feels homesick for God and eternity.

4. Inclination to passivity. The melancholic is a passive temperament. The person possessing such a temperament, therefore, has not the vivacious, quick, progressive, active propensity of the choleric or sanguine, but is slow, pensive, reflective. It is difficult to move him to quick action, since he has a marked inclination to passivity and inactivity. This pensive propensity of the melancholic accounts for his fear of suffering and difficulties as well as for his dread of interior exertion and self-denial.

Peculiarities of the Melancholic

1. He is reserved. He finds it difficult to form new acquaintances and speaks little among strangers. He reveals his inmost thoughts reluctantly and only to those whom he trusts. He does not easily find the right word to express and describe his sentiments. He yearns often to express himself, because it affords him real relief, to confide the sad, depressing thoughts which burden his heart to a person who sympathizes with him.

On the other hand, it requires great exertion on his part to manifest himself, and, when he does so, he goes about it so awkwardly that he does not feel satisfied and finds no rest. Such experiences tend to make the melancholic more reserved. A teacher of melancholic pupils, therefore, must be aware of these peculiarities and must take them into consideration; otherwise he will do a great deal of harm to his charges.

2. The melancholic is irresolute. On account of too many considerations and too much fear of difficulties and of the possibility that his plans or works may fail, the melancholic can hardly reach a decision. He is inclined to defer his decision. What he could do today he postpones for tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or even for the next week. Then he forgets about it and thus it happens that what he could have done in an hour takes weeks and months. He is never finished.

For many a melancholic person it may take a long time to decide about his vocation to the religious life. The melancholic is a man of missed opportunities. While he sees that others have crossed the creek long ago, he still deliberates whether he too should and can jump over it. That's because the melancholic discovers many ways by his reflection and has difficulties in deciding which one to take, he easily gives way to others, and does not stubbornly insist on his own opinion.

3. The melancholic is despondent and without courage. He is pusillanimous and timid if he is called upon to begin a new work, to execute a disagreeable task, to venture on a new undertaking. He has a strong will coupled with talent and power, but no courage. It has become proverbial therefore: "Throw the melancholic into the water and he will learn to swim." If difficulties in his undertakings are encountered by the melancholic, even if they are only very insignificant, he feels discouraged and is tempted to give up the ship, instead of conquering the obstacle and repairing the ill success by increased effort.

4. The melancholic is slow and awkward. a) He is slow in his thinking. He feels it necessary, first of all, to consider and reconsider everything until he can form a calm and safe judgment. b) He is slow in his speech. If he is called upon to answer quickly or to speak without preparation, or if he fears that too much depends on his answer, he becomes restless and does not find the right word and consequently often makes a false and unsatisfactory reply.

This slow thinking may be the reason why the melancholic often stutters, leaves his sentences incomplete, uses wrong phrases, or searches for the right expression. He is also slow, not lazy, at his work. He works carefully and reliably, but only if he has ample time and is not pressed. He himself naturally does not believe that he is a slow worker.

 5. The pride of the melancholic bas its very peculiar side. He does not seek honor or recognition; on the contrary, he is loathe to appear in public and to be praised. But he is very much afraid of disgrace and humiliation. He often displays great reserve and thereby gives the impression of modesty and humility; in reality he retires only because he is afraid of being put to shame. He allows others to be preferred to him, even if they are less qualified and capable than himself for the particular work, position, or office, but at the same time he feels slighted because he is being ignored and his talents are not appreciated.

The melancholic person, if he really wishes to become perfect, must pay very close attention to these feelings of resentment and excessive sensitiveness in the face of even small humiliations. Also, the melancholic has few friends, because few understand him and because he takes few into his confidence.

Bright Side of the Melancholic Temperament

1. The melancholic practices with ease and joy interior prayer. His serious view of life, his love of solitude, and his inclination to reflection are a great help to him in acquiring the interior life of prayer. He has, as it were, a natural inclination inclination to piety. Meditating on the perishable things of this world he thinks of the eternal; sojourning on earth he is attracted to Heaven. Many saints were of a melancholic temperament. This temperament causes difficulties at prayer, since the melancholic person easily loses courage in trials and sufferings and consequently lacks confidence in God, in his prayers, and can be very much distracted by pusillanimous and sad thoughts. 

2. In communication with God the melancholic finds a deep and indescribable peace. He, better than anyone else, understands the words of St. Augustine: "You, O Lord, have created us for yourself, and our heart finds no rest, until it rests in You." His heart, so capable of strong affections and lofty sentiments, finds perfect peace in communion with God. This peace of heart he also feels in his sufferings, if he only preserves his confidence in God and his love for the Crucified. 

3. The melancholic is often a great benefactor to his fellow men. He guides others to God, is a good counselor in difficulties, and a prudent, trustworthy, and well meaning superior. He has great sympathy with his fellow men and a keen desire to help them. If the confidence in God supports the melancholic and encourages him to action, be is willing to make great sacrifices for his neighbor and is strong and unshakable in the battle for ideals. Schubert, in his Psychology, says of the melancholic nature: "It has been the prevailing mental disposition of the most sublime poets, artists, of the most profound thinkers, the greatest inventors, legislators, and especially of those spiritual giants who at their time made known to their nations the entrance to a higher and blissful world of the Divine! to which they themselves were carried by an insatiable longing."

Conclusion

This concludes the first part of understanding the melancholic temperament.  The next installment will discuss the "dark side" of the melancholic, and how those with such temperament should self-train for spiritual advancement. That post will conclude the first temperament under consideration. 

Can Mindfulness Be Catholic?

 

The Vatican II sect is pushing a new (and decidedly pagan/occult) practice; "Catholic Mindfulness." The dangers of this movement cannot be understated. Mindfulness, for those who may be unaware, is a pagan and occult practice that can open up the practitioner to demonic obsession/possession.  (Demonic obsession is demonic influence from outside of the obsessed person, as opposed to controlling the person's body in possession).

Those pushing this misnamed practice are not merely Vatican II sect clerics, but highly educated laymen who think mindfulness can be adapted to Catholicism. This post will show the inherent danger and occult nature of mindfulness, and how it cannot be "made Catholic." If you know anyone in the Vatican II sect who practices this alleged "Catholic Mindfulness," pass on this information to them, and hopefully they will stop. N.B. I have cultivated my information on mindfulness from many sources besides those explicitly mentioned. I give full attribution for the information to all those sources and take no credit except for condensing the information into a readable, terse post---Introibo

Mindfulness and Its Pagan Origin

Mindfulness is usually marketed, explicitly or implicitly, as the key to peace, happiness, and even  "Catholic" spiritual advancement. “Be present” or “Be in the moment” have become common unquestioned bits of folk wisdom. Online and print magazines almost never lack a blurb or an article having to do with being mindful. Insurance company materials promote mindfulness, pictures of it abound online, its on television programs, and whole companies exist based on it. As of January 2024 there are (literally) thousands of "mindfulness meditation" apps. 

According to one source:

Mindfulness is a word used to describe "the basic human ability to be fully present, aware of where we are and what we’re doing, and not overly reactive or overwhelmed by what’s going on around us."...

But the road to mindfulness is, evidently, paved with gold. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the industry exceeds the millions -- and that the combination of "studio classes, workshops, books, online courses and apps ... is worth about $1.2 billion and growing."

(See blog.hubspot.com/marketing/million-dollar-mindfulness-meditation-apps?fbclid=IwAR3fGRrRCC6_9F7zCVY9nS-52814b4NLaagXrv9Lp1AAAowbQgJzLPJsOiE). 

Traditionalists can no longer afford the luxury of being uninformed about mindfulness meditation. As a result of most people seeing meditation merely as a form of relaxation, it has masked its true nature and sparked the interest of researchers who would ordinarily avoid the occult. Clinical psychologist Dr. Gordon Boals, who has taught at Princeton and Rutgers universities, points out:

Viewing meditation as a relaxation technique has had a number of consequences. One result has been to make meditation seem more familiar and acceptable to the Western public so that subjects are willing to learn and practice it and researchers and psychotherapists are interested in experimenting with it. Another outcome is that therapists have been able to find a variety of ways of using it as a therapeutic technique. If meditation is relaxation, it should serve as an antidote to anxiety. (See “Toward a Cognitive Reconceptualization of Meditation,” The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, vol. 10, no, 2, 1983, p. 146). 

Mindfulness is pagan, coming from Buddhism. Standard Buddhist texts claim that in our normal state of mind we misperceive and misun­derstand ourselves (our true nature) and our world (its true nature). The purpose of meditation is to correct these false perceptions and to replace them with a true perception of reality, which is mystically induced by the procedures involved. This is why all forms of mindfulness meditation involve the deliberate cultivation of altered states of consciousness. The "truth" according to Buddhism, is that there is no self, and the goal of the mindfulness is to "become One with the universe." 

Mindfulness, and other forms of Eastern meditation, teach you to observe your breath; this is done so that you eventually become conscious of the breath as something being done, not you doing it. You are to realize that observing the breath means that it is not you observing, but rather the “witness.” This “witness” is the Buddha nature/mind, which is the impersonal principle of existence and which is all that truly exists. Meditation is practiced to deconstruct the sense of one’s individual identity and self:

The state of awareness that we are practicing when we mediate is called the witnessing state or the witness. In a typical meditation practice, we sit still and focus our awareness on a single object, such as counting our breath or repeating a mantra. As soon as we become aware that our mind has wandered off in thought, we just notice that, and return our awareness to our focus object. When we do this, we are practicing being in witnessing awareness. In other words, we are practicing being the witnessing part of our mind watching the thinking part of our mind repeatedly get carried away in thought.

Remember we learned that “subject” is something I identify as me, and “object” is something I identify as not me. “Subject” is what’s on the inside of my face looking out, and “object” is everything on the outside of my face that my subjective self is looking at. In our average everyday waking state of consciousness, we experience our individual self – our body, thinking mind, and feelings – as subject. And we experience everyone and everything outside of our individual body and mind as objects.

When we meditate, we are practicing a shift in our awareness. We are practicing being the witness “watching” temporary thoughts come and go in our minds, and temporary feelings and sensations come and go in our bodies. In other words, we are temporarily making our entire individual self – our entire body and thinking mind – into an object in a larger witnessing awareness. When we do this, we are temporarily shifting our subjective sense of self – our identity – from our gross body and thinking mind to the Witness.

When we aren’t doing something like meditating – when we’re back in our everyday waking state of consciousness – it isn’t that the Witness is somehow gone. Witnessing awareness is always present, but since we identify only with the thinking part of our mind as our “self,” we don’t usually notice that the Witness is there, or experience it as our “self.”

(See integralhealthresources.com/integral-health-2/the-four-quadrants/the-witness). 

The basic worldview of the East is pantheism, the belief that in some sense all of reality is ultimately One and Divine. In bringing their false religions to the West, many people adopt another (yet similar) worldview known as panentheism (the belief that God is "in" all things). Panentheism recognizes God and the world as distinct concepts, but then holds that God is the spirit or "divine energy" or "mind" that fills and pervades and expresses itself in the world. On this view God and the world are interdependent, needing each other to form a complete reality. Thus the standard analogy for panentheism is the idea that a human being is both a spirit (or mind) and a body, with neither doing anything without the other. God is not a personal Creator of the world, but the divine potential of the world and of each one of us. Most people in Western culture could not clearly distinguish pantheism from panentheism, and in most contexts the difference is of little practical significance. Pantheism and its related errors were infallibly condemned by the Vatican Council of 1870. 

The goal of the mindfulness practitioner is to unify himself/herself with the "Divine-self" or "God-Self." Through mindfulness, the person tries to lose contact with the conscious mind for an altered state of consciousness (ASC). This disassociation is meant to allow a person to become "one" with "the Divine." Even those who do not get to such altered states, have unwittingly opened themselves up to a decidedly pagan worldview and possible demon possession. The idea of being "divine" is the opposite of Christianity which tells us we are sinners in need of Redemption by the God-Man Jesus Christ.

So how did an obviously pagan practice, used also by occultists to make contact with "the spirit world" become accepted by mainstream occupations and organizations? That question will be answered next.

Making Mindfulness Mainstream

The re-packaging of mindfulness was accomplished primarily through the work of two men, Thich Nhat Hanh (d. 2022), a Buddhist monk, and his disciple, Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn (b. 1944).

1. Thich Nhat Hanh, according to his website:

...was a global spiritual leader, poet, and peace activist, revered throughout the world for his powerful teachings and bestselling writings on mindfulness and peace. His key teaching was that, through mindfulness, we can learn to live happily in the present moment—the only way to truly develop peace, both in one’s self and in the world. Thich Nhat Hanh published over 100 titles on meditation, mindfulness, and engaged Buddhism, as well as poems, children’s stories, and commentaries on ancient Buddhist texts. He sold over five million books in the United States alone...

Thich Nhat Hanh was a pioneer in bringing Buddhism to the West, founding eleven monasteries and dozens of practice centers in the United States, Asia, and Europe, as well as over 1,000 local mindfulness practice communities, known as ‘sanghas.’ He built a thriving community of over 600 monks and nuns worldwide, who, together with his tens of thousands of lay students, apply his teachings on mindfulness, peace-making, and community-building in schools, workplaces, businesses – and even prisons – throughout the world. (See thichnhathanhfoundation.org/thich-nhat-hanh; Emphasis mine). 

He flourished thanks to Vatican II's damnable doctrine on "religious liberty." He wasted no time propagating religious indifferentism. In his best-selling book, Living Buddha, Living Christ (1995), Thich Nhat Hanh pronounces that “when you believe, for example, that yours is the only way for humankind, millions of people might be killed because of that idea” (pp. 92-93). He also claims that if we believe that Christianity alone provides the way of salvation “this attitude excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination.” (pg. 193).

He wrote, “I do not think there is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. Most of the boundaries we have created between our two traditions are artificial. Truth has no boundaries” (pg. 154). Although Hanh does not offer a comprehensive theory concerning the unity of all religions, he attempts to show that Jesus’ and Buddha’s teachings agree and that “when you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist. And vice versa” (pg. 197).  

In attempting to show the blasphemous "spiritual brotherhood" of Jesus and Buddha, Hanh explains that the Christian practice of Holy Communion is really an exercise in “mindfulness” (!) By this he means the Buddhist practice of reflecting on the interconnection of all things or what he calls “interbeing.” Everything is a part of something else, and nothing stands alone. So Hanh tells us that “the miracle happens…because we eat and drink in mindfulness….If we allow ourselves to touch our bread deeply, we become reborn, because our bread is life itself. Eating it deeply, we touch the sun, the clouds, the earth, and everything in the cosmos. We touch life, we touch the kingdom of God” (pgs. 30-31).

2.  Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn was raised a non-practicing Jew. He became attracted to Buddhism and studied under Hahn, becoming a Buddhist himself. Kabat-Zinn's doctorate is in molecular biology. A practicing Buddhist  (sometimes he disavows he practices Buddhism) and board member of the Mind and Life Institute, an organization dedicated to “exploring the relationship of science and Buddhism as ways to better understand the nature of reality,” Kabat-Zinn always believed his "karmic assignment" (purpose in life) was to find a way to bring his dharma practice (Buddhist practice) together with his scientific pursuits to create "one unified whole."

While on a Buddhist retreat, he had a vision in which he “saw” a way to do this, through a program he would later call the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program. This program was designed to be a patient-centered approach which could be used in hospital settings to treat persons with PTSD and other stress/anxiety disorders. However, with the core of the program being intensive training in mindfulness meditation, he knew these Buddhist roots would make many people nervous and so he “bent over backward” to find ways to employ the program without revealing its Buddhist underpinnings. 

The answer was to make it all about "stress reduction" and throw in scientific verbiage. There has been a great effort on the part of "alternative treatment practitioners" to emphasize stress in the culture, which then allows them to advocate their particular remedies for it. Mindfulness therapy is now extensively used in psychology and psychotherapy. However, Christian prayer and meditation is a definite non-starter, even though going to Church has been shown in a recent study to lower blood pressure (See nyulangone.org/news/the-wall-street-journal-new-study-shows-going-church-can-lower-blood-pressure). 

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Kabat-Zinn stated:

“Mindfulness, the heart of Buddhist meditation, is at the core of being able to live life as if it really matters. It has nothing to do with Buddhism. It has to do with freedom,” Kabat-Zinn said in a telephone interview from Lexington, Mass. “Mindfulness is so powerful that the fact that it comes out of Buddhism is irrelevant..."

Kabat-Zinn is reluctant to use the word “spiritual” to describe the approach to healthy living that he promotes, characterizing it instead as being “grounded in common sense.”

“You don’t have to have a belief system or faith of one kind or another,” he said. “It’s not in conflict with faith. It’s about a profound connection with the universe … within a faith tradition or outside of any faith tradition..."

Kabat-Zinn says anything resembling religious vocabulary can be anathema to many people. He prefers to use a vocabulary that doesn’t exclude anybody.

“I don’t have to use the word ‘spiritual,’” he said. “Part of it is the power of silence and stillness. And part of that power is the power of healing that happens when you move from the domain of doing to being. It’s transformative..."

“It’s about people waking up, not being confined by any belief system,” he said. “Awareness is bigger than a belief system.” (See latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-oct-02-la-me-1002-beliefs-meditation-20101002-story.html; Emphasis mine). 

So mindfulness is "the heart of Buddhist meditation," yet "it has nothing to do with Buddhism" and the fact that it comes from Buddhism is "irrelevant." Got all that? The altered states of consciousness (ASCs) that mindfulness meditation typically develops, tend to result in a radically restructured, and false, view of self and society. Characteristically, one ends up thinking that the material universe is a dream or an illusion and that one’s true nature is one essence with God. This is, in principle, Buddhist teaching. 

Moreover, trance states and ASCs have been traditionally associated with the occult world, demonism, and other forms of spirit contact, such as shamanism, witchcraft, neo-paganism, magic ritual, Satanism, mediums, and yoga. Whether one is a short- or long- term practitioner, mindfulness meditation is designed to change one’s view of “self” and the world by altering one’s conscious­ness. This is opening oneself to demonic influence. 

Mindfulness and the Vatican II Sect

"Catholic Mindfulness" is pushed by members of the Vatican II sect, but none more prestigious than Dr. Greg Bottaro. According to his website:

Dr. Greg Bottaro is a Catholic psychologist, founder of the CatholicPsych Institute and developer of the CatholicPsych Model of Applied Personalism (CPMAP).Before he was married, he spent 4 years as a Franciscan Friar under the mentorship of Fr. Benedict Groeschel. He's now married with 7 kids under 10. (See catholicpsych.com/bio). 

Bottaro insists that mindfulness can be "Catholic." A blogger, Laura Eppen, also a Vatican II sect member, agrees:

Dr. Greg challenges a common misconception concerning practicing mindfulness as a faithful Catholic by comparing it to breathing or tea-drinking.  

“Mindfulness doesn’t lend itself to already needing to defend itself,” he explains, “People say we shouldn’t use that word, but actually the word mindfulness is not implicating an Eastern practice in itself anyway, any more than tea-drinking is... but if you're drinking tea as part of a Buddhist ceremony or a Hindu ceremony, then that’s something we would not want to do as Catholics. But we’re not going to say, ‘Well then, stop drinking tea.’” 

(See theyoungcatholicwoman.com/archivescollection/understanding-catholic-mindfulness-with-dr-greg-bottaro-part-1). Bottaro is correct that tea drinking is not inherently Buddhist. However, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, mindfulness, unlike tea, is inexorably tied to paganism/occultism.

Miss Eppen puts her finger on why mindfulness is considered Catholic---the heretical teachings of Vatican II:

 Perhaps the most common criticism of mindfulness is that it is a Buddhist or non-Christian practice and thus, not suitable for faithful Catholics. It’s helpful here to begin by understanding the Catholic Church’s stance on relating to other religions.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI wrote about this relationship in his Declaration on The Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra aetate): 

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

It is fair and just to say that mindfulness falls under the category of a “good thing” since, although it has foundations in Buddhism, it is not an exclusive practice of Buddhism. (Ibid).

The false ecclesiology of Vatican II places a separation between "the Church of Christ" and the Catholic Church. They are no longer one and the same. The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in its fullness because it has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ subsists elsewhere, depending on how many "elements" of truth the sect has; to have all elements is best, but having only some is good too, and leads to salvation. Therefore, we can get "good elements" from something that has "foundations in Buddhism." 

Again, Miss Eppen:

When critically evaluating the usefulness of new schools of prayer or thought, Dr. Greg is adamant that understanding what exactly it is we are talking about is crucial for healthy dialogue and practice. He agrees with this definition of mindfulness from John Kabat-Zin, innovator of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): “[Mindfulness is] the awareness that arises from paying attention on purpose in the present moment, non-judgmentally.” Kabat-Zinn also encourages people to see that Buddhism doesn’t own mindfulness, just as Sir Isaac Newton doesn’t own gravity, simply because he identified it. Mindfulness as a concept and practice may have been identified elsewhere, but it has an integral place that fits in accordance with Catholic teaching, prayer, and the call to holiness. In fact, many saints have practiced mindfulness devoutly throughout their lives under different names. 

There are other schools of thought about prayer and meditation that share similarities to mindfulness practice, such as Brother Lawrence’s’ The Practice of the Presence of God and Fr. Jean-Pierre de Cassade’s Abandonment to Divine Providence. And when asked whether mindfulness is different, Dr. Greg states, “It’s not necessarily that it’s different. It’s just that I find those approaches to be a bit incomplete, where it's just the spiritual focus–and that's really important. But I would also say that Kabat-Zinn would be incomplete in that it’s only the psychological focus. So, the thing that’s kind of missing is the combination and the integration of both and that's what I'm trying to provide with The Mindful Catholic and with the program that I have.” (Ibid; Emphasis mine). 

Here, Bottaro agrees with the pagan definition of Kobat-Zinn, and pompously sees the spiritual classic of Fr. de Cassade as "incomplete." No saint has ever practiced the nonsense pushed by Bottaro. In mindfulness, the practitioner spends his time in meditation attempting to control his or her awareness, trying to maintain it upon either a single point, the rhythm of his breathing, or whatever is most prominent in his consciousness. You are even to remain nonjudgmental toward any thoughts and impulses that come to mind. Bottaro makes use of paying attention to breathing, etc. exactly like a pagan/occult practitioner. In Catholic meditation, you relinquish control to Almighty God, the opposite of mindfulness. This was taught by St. Teresa of Avila, who describes four distinct stages of prayer that the faithful Christian may experience in the course of one’s lifetime.

Bottaro is pushing occult/pagan mindfulness as "Catholic," and leading souls into danger. 

Conclusion

There is no such thing as "Catholic Mindfulness" anymore than there can be "Catholic Atheism." One excludes the other of necessity. Mindfulness leads to ASCs, the acceptance of a pantheistic worldview, and demonic activity. Occultist Laeh Garfield  who channels "spirit helpers," writes in Companion in Spirit: A Guide to Working with Your Spirit Helpers [1984], pg. 34, “[Mindfulness] Meditation simultaneously calms you down, uplifts you and sharpens your awareness, so that discarnate teachers can come through to you with the messages they con­vey.” (Emphasis mine).

 There is also evidence that such meditation can be bad for your mental health. (See verywellhealth.com/mindfulness-can-be-harmful-researchers-say-5186740).  Learn to pray from the spiritual masters, such as St. Ignatius of Loyola, or St. John of the Cross. Engage in "Catholic Mindfulness" at the risk of your mental health and endangering your soul.

The Novus Ordo, The Abomination of Desolation, And The Prophet Daniel

To My Readers: This week I introduce to you a new guest poster: Mr. Dominic Caggeso. Dominic applied to be a guest poster, and he has both the orthodoxy and writing ability to make great posts! He resides here in the United States with his wife and children. They left the Vatican II sect and became Traditionalists in 2016. I can't thank Dominic enough for giving me a much needed respite. He will be posting here, once per month, if I get positive feedback from the readership this week. Please feel free to make comments or ask questions, and Dominic will answer. If you have a specific question or comment addressed to me, I will answer as always, but it will take me longer to get back to you this week.

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

The Novus Ordo, the Abomination of Desolation, and the Prophet Daniel

By Dominic Caggeso

Hindsight is 20/20. The further the Second Vatican Council drifts into history, the clearer it becomes in our mind's eye.  We are separate and away from it now, having clearly articulated its errors for decades. However, imagine that instead of drifting into the past, the Second Vatican Council was approaching on the future’s horizon. Imagine what it was like for Catholics of the past who felt the evil winds blowing and sensed the powers of Hell gathering. Pious Catholic writers from the 18th and 19th centuries looked into the future and foresaw dark events, wondering how much and what kind of damage awaited the Church. Those Catholics were anticipating something horrible. 

A child who goes to the doctor, knowing he will receive a shot, turns his head away and grits his teeth, wondering if every little poke or prod was the anticipated and dreaded needle. Was that it? How about that? Then, suddenly, the shot is given, and the child no longer has any doubt. 

How many Catholics from distant centuries studied the Sacred Scriptures and wondered about the Great Apostasy foretold in 2 Thessalonians or the abomination of desolation that Our Lord foretells in the Gospel of St. Matthew? What would it have been like for them as they watched various apostasies unfold throughout history?  They would have asked themselves; “Was this particular schism the abomination?” “Was that heresy the Great Apostasy?” Then suddenly, the "shot is given," and the child knows!  After it occurs, there is no more wondering. Ah! It was the Second Vatican Council; that was it! Can more significant damage have been done to the Church? Surely, the Second Vatican Council was the Great Apostasy! But in that post-conciliar fog, what exactly constitutes the abomination of desolation? 

How many abominations have we witnessed in our holy places since the Second Vatican Council? Their numbers are uncountable, occurring daily for decades in basilicas, cathedrals, parish churches and chapels worldwide. The abominations vary by type as well. There are abominations of heresy, apostasy, liturgy, immodesty, immorality, etc. Any one of these abominations is sufficient for outrage and righteous indignance.

Collectively and over the years, sedevacantists have been subtly testing out an idea with each other. I have heard this idea in sermons, podcasts and YouTube videos. Over the decades, an idea has risen to the surface, like oil and water that separate when mixed. The idea, the assertion: the Novus Ordo is the abomination of desolation. The statement is made, and nobody blinks. I don't think there is any sedevacantist today who would object. Some might say that perhaps it is not THE abomination that Our Lord is warning us about. But at the same time, our experience as Catholics leaves us with an unspoken question: What could be worse than the Novus Ordo?

I want to convey with confidence that the Novus Ordo rite is actually THE abomination of desolation, in the fullest sense. To demonstrate this, I want to shift the perspective slightly and examine it from another angle. There is more certainty in this claim than we might initially realize! To demonstrate the solidity of this assertion, let's start with the term itself: abomination of desolation. The first hurdle is to define the abomination of desolation and see if the Novus Ordo rite meets the criteria.

Being a term from Sacred Scripture, it is deliberately chosen. The word "abomination" comes from the Latin abōminārī, meaning to detest. Thus, an abomination is a detestable thing. The word "desolation" clearly means destruction and emptiness. When these two words are joined into one term, "abomination of desolation," we are given a meaning of something repulsive that will cause destruction and emptiness.  That resonates very well with lived experience. The meaning of this term is fully compatible with the Novus Ordo rite. There is emptiness and destruction in dioceses and parishes worldwide. It is directly due to the changes from the Second Vatican Council, especially the new invalid rite of Paul VI. I doubt any sedevacantist would disagree much so far. We seem to have cleared the first hurdle.

The next logical step is to see where the term "abomination of desolation" occurs in Sacred Scripture. After all, Our Lord told us to flee when we see the abomination of desolation, as prophesied by Daniel. He directs us to return to the Old Testament and see what the Prophet Daniel wrote about it. 

When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. (Matthew 24:15)

This seems easy enough to anyone who has not yet studied the Book of Daniel. But, for anyone who has sat down with a hot cup of tea and thoughtfully analyzed the Book of Daniel, the realization soon dawns that this task is not simple! The prophecies in the Book of Daniel are famously mysterious and seemingly incomprehensible. So, let's briefly lay the Book of Daniel to the side. We'll come back to it a bit later. There is still another place in the Old Testament where the term "abomination of desolation" occurs, which is 1 Machabees. The footnotes in the Douay-Rheims Bible for the Book of Daniel reference the Books of Machabees specifically concerning the abomination of desolation. Therefore, we are on firm ground to look for clues there.

The Books of the Machabees open with the conquest of Alexander the Great. He conquered the Persian Empire in the 300s BC, after which the Greeks dominated the ancient world. I like how the Book of 1 Machabees 1 states that “the earth was quiet before him,” such a vivid description.

1Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes:  2 He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth:  3 And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him  (1 Machabees 1: 1-3)

After Alexander’s death, his empire was split among his generals. The new Greek Seleucid kingdom took over Jerusalem, which, before Alexander’s conquest, was a city-state in the Persian Empire. If you remember, the Persian King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return from their exile, rebuild the temple, practice their religion, and live by their own laws in Jerusalem. They were still part of the Persian Empire and loyal to the Persian King, but they were self-governing in their little city-state. This small detail is relevant, so please excuse me for this brief digression. 

What happened next was horrifying for the Jews! In the Books of the Machabees, the evil Greek Seleucid King, Antiochus IV, arrogantly desecrated the temple. He dismantled the whole temple religious system from the very heart of Jerusalem. Consider this summary of events.

1. He appointed two usurper “high priests,” Jason and Menelaus. The text tells us that Jason was “no priest” (1 Machabees 4:13). Menelaus went on to dispose of or sell the holy vessels from the temple.

2. After Alexander’s conquest, the Greeks governed the ancient world and spread their culture, language, and religion far and wide. The name given for this process is Hellenization, a process in which the ancient world conformed to the Greeks. Hellenization infected Jerusalem, tempting Jews to embrace the modern ways of the Greeks. Par Rapport to the rest of the ancient world, the Jews seemed to be backward, outdated, and culturally insignificant. There was tremendous pressure on the Jews to conform. For those who valued the opinions of men, this pressure was insupportable. 

3.  In this context, Antiochus IV arrogantly entered the temple and assumed religious authority. He banned the traditional Jewish temple sacrifice. He stripped the temple of its ornaments and beauty. He placed a new second altar over and against the altar of God. He banned the practice of Jewish laws and traditions. He persecuted anyone who followed the Law of Moses. For these actions and many others, he is known as the “Changer of Times, Laws, and Seasons,” as mentioned in the Book of Daniel. As shown below, the footnotes from the Douay Rheims Bible for Daniel 7:8 confirm this.

And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25)

[8] "Another little horn": This is commonly understood of Antichrist. It may also be applied to that great persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes, as a figure of Antichrist. 

4. The blasphemous capstone for the devilish deeds of Antiochus IV was setting up the abominable idol of desolation and sacrificing to it on the new second altar.

On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God (1 Machabees 1:57)

And on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God. (1 Machabees 1:62)

5.  To spread his “revisions” of the Jewish religion throughout the land, he built new Greek altars around Juda.

Wow! Are there any readers who don’t see the clear parallels to the Second Vatican Council in the above summary? They leap off the page, especially for those who have come out of the Novus Ordo and into Traditional Catholicism. Nonetheless, indulge me to list out the parallels. 

1. As explicitly stated in the sacred text, Jason and Menelaus were usurper high priests. They were both Jews, but were Hellenizing Jews, who wanted to update the Jewish religion to be like the Greeks. Menelaus disposed of the sacred vessels. Similarly, both John XXIII and Paul VI were usurpers. They were both Italian, like Jason and Menelaus were Jews. Paul VI disposed of the Papal Tiara in 1964 and gave the papal ring to the United Nations in 1965, just as Menelaus gave away or sold the sacred vessels.

2. Pope St. Pius X identified Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. The world was changing in the 1950s after World War II, and there was growing pressure on Catholics to “get with the times.” The Modernists took this opportunity for “aggiornamento” to update the Church and bring it into the modern world. Compare this to the Hellenization that was occurring in the ancient world.

3. In this context, Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo rite on April 3, 1969. He outlawed the Tridentine Mass and mandated that the Novus Ordo be exclusively used in all churches by November 28, 1971 (this date comes from an article by Fr. Cekada). Churches were stripped of their statues and other pious Catholic art. A new second “altar” was erected worldwide in every Catholic Church. All this happened in the Books of the Machabees! In 1978, John Paul II emerged from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica. Unlike his predecessors, he was not Italian. By comparison, Antiochus was a foreigner, but his two predecessors, Jason and Menelaus, were Jews.  Antiochus IV changed times, laws, and seasons, as did John Paul II change cannon law, the catechism, updated the Lateran Treaty, gave new mysteries of the Rosary, gave the new “devotion” of Sister Faustina, etc.

4. The capstone evil of the Second Vatican Council is the blasphemous and invalid fake “Mass” of the Novus Ordo on the new second “altar.” Thus the Novus Ordo is directly comparable to the abomination of desolation!

5. Just as Antiochus built new Greek altars around Juda, new modern churches also sprang up designed explicitly for the Novus Ordo. These new churches often were built with Greek-style amphitheater seating. None of these new churches had a Catholic altar, only the new second “altar.”

These are some of the direct, one to one correspondences between the Books of the Machabees and the Second Vatican Council / Novus Ordo!  Given the scriptural connections between the abomination of desolation prophecies in the Book of Daniel and the Books of the Machabees, the above similarities can hardly be viewed as insignificant.  Especially because Our Lord specifically told us to look in the Book of Daniel to understand the abomination of desolation!  The conclusion emerges that the Novus Ordo rite is THE abomination of desolation. He that readeth let him understand.

To add some icing on this cake, consider the following similarities as well:

 

Before the Books of the Machabees, Jerusalem was a city-state in the Persian Empire, where the Jews could live by religious laws and self-govern. After its creation in 1929, the city-state of Vatican City could do exactly the same.

The reaction of devout Jews to the abomination of desolation was to flee to the hill country of Juda, to the town of Modin. From there, they launched the Machabean Uprising. Likewise, the reaction of devout Catholics (especially those called to the priesthood) was to flee to the Alps (the mountains) to the seminary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The famous nine sedevacantist priests all have history there! Does this not bring to mind the words of Christ yet again?

15When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. 

16Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: (Matthew 24:15-16)

Conclusion

If you are convinced that the Novus Ordo is THE abomination of desolation, then consider taking another look at the prophecies in the Book of Daniel. What if the implementation dates of the Novus Ordo rite could be a starting place to interpret the prophecy of Daniel 9. After all, the prophecy of Daniel 9 explicitly mentions the abomination of desolation and intrinsic to the prophecy is a time-table of events. If we know that the Novus Ordo is the abomination of desolation, then it is logical that it would be revealed in Biblical prophecy. We can explore that in my next article, God willing. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 25

 

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

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

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

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

Countering the Sophistry of the Dimond Brothers

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

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

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

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

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

 The False Foundations of Bobby's Feeneyism

I. An Incorrect Understanding of the Magisterium

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

Remember the definitions of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium:

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

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

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

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

 Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [Magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

(b) The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) at work.

Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

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

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

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

CONDEMNED ERROR #22:

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

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

 II. Bobby is Supremely Unqualified in the Judgements he Makes

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

What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church? The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."

 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.  (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:357-358). 

Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. 

Theologian Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc., are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court.  According to theologian Scheeben:

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

Bobby Dimond: Arrogance and Incompetence on Steroids

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Selective and Hypocritical Use of Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobby's "Final Comments"

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567:

  Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Video You Must See

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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