FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde (/showthread.php?tid=51875)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Walty - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 02:51 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I understand and I generally agree.

I guess we've come a long way since the days of the Council of Constance, whose fathers could boldly justify their treachery against Fr. John Huss by saying "that faith need not be kept with heretics."

Yeah, but we're just little plebes, not prelates in the Church.  And that was within the context of a discussion.  I'd call out a friend who was a heretic if it was relevant to the discussion.  I'm sure I have more times than I can remember.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Vetus Ordo - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 02:53 AM)Walty Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 02:51 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I understand and I generally agree.

I guess we've come a long way since the days of the Council of Constance, whose fathers could boldly justify their treachery against Fr. John Huss by saying "that faith need not be kept with heretics."

Yeah, but we're just little plebes, not prelates in the Church.  And that was within the context of a discussion.  I'd call out a friend who was a heretic if it was relevant to the discussion.  I'm sure I have more times than I can remember.

Virtue and honour should apply to all men, clergy and laity alike. It's not dignified for prelates in the Church to commit treachery as they did with Huss. They don't get a free pass just because of their ecclesiastical position.

We've definitely come a long way since then.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Historian - 12-29-2011

The Dimond guys are no more consecrated Brothers than I am. It's like those Evangelical youth pastors who call themselves "Brother Todd" because they heard that calling yourself Brother gives you some kind of authority. I feel sorry for the Dimonds; particularly because they are the prime example of where one can end up without critical reflection and a solid Catholic foundation (I may not know their history too well, but it just seems one could never turn that way without missing key bits of information). They are the example of why sometimes we must bite our tongues before speaking lest someone take what we say to the extreme; or rather, misunderstand what we say and think "Oh boy, it's all over now!". I know a guy like that, he constantly goes back and forth between Sede, SSPX and neocon depending on what he is reading or who he last spoke to.

As for the Dimond videos. I have never understood it. How supposed "monastics" can spend so much time making videos about such and such. In the end, it makes on realize: who are they trying to convince? Themselves. Why spend hours meticulously forming questions in such a way to trap priests and then spend your time, money and effort to trap them into saying things so you can put it on youtube. Honestly, if nobody can see how ridiculous that is given their position.... If they really believed in their position, they'd carry on as normal and leave the heretics to do their thing. Instead, they are like snakes going around setting traps and doing all they can to twist and turn something into a heresy so they can justify their position. Again, they do it because their position has no foundation. They rely on the "Other"; as in "They are all heretics, watch me prove it, thus I have shown my position is correct". A real conviction is interior and soulful. Imagine if after Trent the Church spent all her time sneakily interviewing the heretics and for the next 400 years based their evangelization on "look at them and how wrong they are!" It is hardly convincing and shows weakness. I truly feel sorry for them, in some areas I am sure they have it right though (very few though).

Let us pray for them.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - FatherCekada - 12-29-2011

(12-28-2011, 10:41 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Father,

If you wrote that article looking at modern theologians would you reach the same conclusions? 

No. There seems to be little they agree on anyway.

Even before Vatican II ended, the modernist crowd (triumphant at the Council) took over virtually all theological discourse and marginalized those "dinosaurs" who adhered to the tenets and methods of traditional Catholic theology (Thomism). The modernists went off in all directions, shattering any consensus — a natural consequence of their belief in the evolution of dogma.

Part of their method was to reduce to the smallest number possible any doctrines that a Catholic was actually obliged to adhere to.

At the same time those, who supposedly had the authority to guard the deposit of faith (Paul VI, the bishops), abolished legal/disciplinary safeguards over theological writings, and allowed anyone to say virtually anything to undermine Catholic teaching.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Spencer - 12-29-2011

(12-28-2011, 06:23 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Another thread raised the issue of the Feeneyite Dimond brothers secretly recording phone conversations with various priests, and then posting the conversations on You Tube. Apparently they snookered Fr. Hughes CMRI, Fr. Harrison OS, Fr. Gordon FSSP and Fr. Terra FSSP into talking with them.

When one of them called me, I grilled him until he finally admitted who he really was. I then refused to talk to him.

They still put the recording up, but after I complained to You Tube, it seems to have been pulled.

Broadcasting a recorded phone conversation without the consent of both parties is against FCC regulation 73.1206, which should be cited when complaining to You Tube.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.1206.pdf

I suspect that You Tube takes violations of Federal regulations like this very seriously.

I've notified the four priests named above. If you know of any others whom the Dimonds have deceived, pass the word along!

How come no one has challenged them to a debate? How come you refuse to speak to them if you know they are
In error and may very well lose their souls if not brought to the correct position? It seems uncharitable and lacking fidelity not to debate the Diamond brothers if, as others have pointed out, that so many people turn to them for information about what has happened to the Catholic Church. It would seem as if you could point out their error to them, not by your opinion, but by the Magisterial teaching of the Chirch then you may very well be helping thousands of Catholics from around the world. I admit that they should have gotten permission and be completely open about who they are when they call. Other than these faults what error can you hold them to? As Catholics we should not be speaking I'll of others, but rather help others by clarifying their misunderstandings and helping them to see the truth.
Everyone is quick to speak ill of the Diamond brothers, yet they are at least stirring up conversation about the most important issues of our day. Issues that otherwise would not even be know many.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Gerard - 12-29-2011

How does one determine when and if Baptism of Desire has ever actually occurred and if it did occur, how do we know that there was no miraculous water Baptism as part of it?


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Parmandur - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 12:42 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(12-28-2011, 06:23 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Another thread raised the issue of the Feeneyite Dimond brothers secretly recording phone conversations with various priests, and then posting the conversations on You Tube. Apparently they snookered Fr. Hughes CMRI, Fr. Harrison OS, Fr. Gordon FSSP and Fr. Terra FSSP into talking with them.

When one of them called me, I grilled him until he finally admitted who he really was. I then refused to talk to him.

They still put the recording up, but after I complained to You Tube, it seems to have been pulled.

Broadcasting a recorded phone conversation without the consent of both parties is against FCC regulation 73.1206, which should be cited when complaining to You Tube.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/47cfr73.1206.pdf

I suspect that You Tube takes violations of Federal regulations like this very seriously.

I've notified the four priests named above. If you know of any others whom the Dimonds have deceived, pass the word along!

How come no one has challenged them to a debate? How come you refuse to speak to them if you know they are
In error and may very well lose their souls if not brought to the correct position? It seems uncharitable and lacking fidelity not to debate the Diamond brothers if, as others have pointed out, that so many people turn to them for information about what has happened to the Catholic Church. It would seem as if you could point out their error to them, not by your opinion, but by the Magisterial teaching of the Chirch then you may very well be helping thousands of Catholics from around the world. I admit that they should have gotten permission and be completely open about who they are when they call. Other than these faults what error can you hold them to? As Catholics we should not be speaking I'll of others, but rather help others by clarifying their misunderstandings and helping them to see the truth.
Everyone is quick to speak ill of the Diamond brothers, yet they are at least stirring up conversation about the most important issues of our day. Issues that otherwise would not even be know many.

"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you." - Matthew 7:6

A debate presupposes good will.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - columb - 12-29-2011

I don't hold to every conclusion arrived at by the Bros Dimond but I do agree with some.
Fr. Cekada, you agree with them on their sedevacante belief, I do not; neither do I disagree. I just don't know for sure and don't feel competent to come down on one side definitively. However, on the balance of theological evidence that I have studied thus far from both positions, I've come to the conclusion and believe that Baptism of Desire is a non doctrine and is refuted by the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church on EENS.

like a previous poster and against what Tim (whom I respect very much) concludes, I too believe that belief in BoD has paved the way for all manner of errors concerning the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.
I think this issue is at the crux of all debate among traditionalists and is the most divisive point. To resolve it would be of great advantage for all concerned and to do so would IMHO require a definitive definition on what exactly BoD is.  I.E, even the most basic questions answered such as those posed (below) by Gerard:

Quote:
"How does one determine when and if Baptism of Desire has ever actually occurred and if it did occur, how do we know that there was no miraculous water Baptism as part of it?"

Do we even know of one soul in heaven through BoD? Do we mean that it's probable,/possible but just can't say for sure? If indeed their are such souls in heaven, have they entered heaven without "the water" of which Our Lord said, (and of which Trent agrees) "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter...etc.?"

PS.  I've been involved in one too many BoD discussions/debates and still have some fresh war-wounds.
I know.. I really should know better by now.  Just never had the contradictions satisfactorily laid to rest..


Ooops.. spell check.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Spencer - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: I don't hold to every conclusion arrived at by the Bros Dimond but I do agree with some.
Fr. Cekada, you agree with them on their sedevacante belief, I do not; neither do I disagree.

Which one is it? Do you agree or not?


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - INPEFESS - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 10:21 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: I don't hold to every conclusion arrived at by the Bros Dimond but I do agree with some.
Fr. Cekada, you agree with them on their sedevacante belief, I do not; neither do I disagree.

Which one is it? Do you agree or not?

columb Wrote:I just don't know for sure and don't feel competent to come down on one side definitively.

It does not have to be either/or. The poster obviously doesn't think himself to have the theological competence to make such a decision. None of us have such confidence, yet so many of us want to pretend we do and declare our opinions as though they were articles of faith. I respect someone who is willing to acknowledge with humility that we don't have all the answers. There are strong arguments on both sides. In the end, no-one will know until the Church authoritatively settles the matter. We should submit our intellects to what we cannot possibly know and proceed with caution in a way that corresponds to the principles the Church has given us when there is an objective doubt present.