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 - Gerard - 12-31-2011

(12-30-2011, 06:16 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:58 PM)columb Wrote: 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.

Sorry, but you don't have the right to form your own opinion on baptism of desire.

General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Particular Fact: Catholic theologians DO hold the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood) by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

(See the table attached to the following article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf )

Conclusion: Therefore all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood).

The only issues you or I might be free to hold an opinion about would be  the degree of error on the part of someone who denies these teachings (theological error, error in Catholic doctrine or heresy) or the gravity of the sin against the faith he commits (mortal sin indirectly against the faith, or directly against the faith).

While I fly in lots of planes, I wouldn't think of formulating my own theories about the science of aerodynamics (aircraft are held up by pixies and phlogiston, say), still less build and fly an aircraft based on them.

So too, while we are all Catholics who love the faith, we must recognize that theology is a science which operates according to rules and principles that one discards at his own peril. If the experts have commonly taught a certain doctrine for centuries and if their writings have consistenly received the approval of the magisterium, we place ourselves in grave spiritual peril if we presume to deny the doctrine they teach.

Fr,

Stipulating that you are correct in your premise and conclusion, are we free in your opinion to believe that it has probably never happened?  Whether one holds the "Feeney " position or BOD or BOB, no more or less souls are saved either formulation.  Feeney's position simply is more consistent with God's economy. and Pope Eugene's statement in Cantate Domino that is either false or severely limits Baptism of Blood.

Re: Sciences in general and areas of specialty,  do you believe in neo Darwinian evolution?


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Vincentius - 12-31-2011

Quote: Fr, Stipulating that you are correct in your premise and conclusion, are we free in your opinion to believe that it has probably never happened?  Whether one holds the "Feeney " position or BOD or BOB, no more or less souls are saved either formulation.  Feeney's position simply is more consistent with God's economy. and Pope Eugene's statement in Cantate Domino that is either false or severely limits Baptism of Blood.

We can safely say it (BOD/BOB) "probably never happened."  That would be the free expression of an opinion, which carries with it some doubt as to its probability.  However clear reasoning would point otherwise.  Elsewhere some cases of non-water baptism have been mentioned (e.g., Valentinian by St. Ambrose).  And then there are the catechumens who were fed to the lions for the entertainment of the pagans.  It can be fairly presumed that these catechumens (so-called because they were still going through the process of becoming members of the Church) were saved by shedding their blood for Christ.  The Roman Martyrology contains many of the names of these saints who have been canonized long before the systematic Church proceedings for canonization was formulated.  The Church has said these saints died for Jesus, and who are we to question her?  Causa finita est.  Do we question St. Ambrose who declared Valentinian was saved?  He must have known something, which we don't.

As for consistency of God's economy of salvation, it would seem that what has been taught by the Scriptures and Tradition was just enough to bring man to salvation. But it seems, not really (despite the Bible, there are gazillions who have made up their minds how to go about their salvation).  Why then do we have these extraordinary revelations by Heaven in sending the Holy Mother of God with spiritual messages and Jesus Himself going "out of bounds" by making Himself personally available to anyone to have recourse to His Sacred Heart, devotions to His Precious Blood, etc.,, along with the admonitions "Woe to you" if ignored.  Okay, granted that the foregoing are private revelations and not required to be accepted for belief.  Yet it would be presumptuous and foolish to disregard the mind of the Church who has vouchsafed that these revelations are worthy of belief. 

As for Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene states that "... none of those existing outside the Catholic Church ... can have a share in life eternal ... unless before death they are joined with Her."  If God pours out His graces freely to all (not only Catholics) whom He may want to save, who are we to say that those outside the Church receiving these graces are touched and do make use of them and convert and jump into the Ark of the Church (Jews, Protestants, schismatics, heretics, pagans)?  Pope Eugene singles out all those who are obdurate, impenitent, resisting the graces, though these may even shed their blood for Christ (as those Protestant "martyrs" in Asia, Africa and elsewhere) but their action is for naught.

What we may forget is that God is not bound by His own Laws nor by the Sacraments. 

A footnote to the impasse:  BOD/BOB was never an issue of contention until Fr. Feeney showed up.  All those years since St. Cyprian originally declared the formula, Salus extra ecclesiam non est, there was never THE great debate about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.  Was ever there?  I mean as contentious as these debates rage on these days.  Were there?  I'd liked to be pointed to them.  Who were the Dimonds of those ages?



Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Spencer - 01-17-2012

(12-30-2011, 09:00 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Hi Father. How would the Dimonds or other Feeneyites respond to what you state here? A response would be appreciated, as recently, Feeneyites writings and my own scrupulosity has had me in the dumps for a while (due to scruples on Baptisn of Desire and Blood, invincible ignorance, implicit faith, as well as scruples that the Dimonds et al. may be correct.)

I first published the linked article ten years ago, and no one in the Feeneyite camp that I know of has come up with a serious response.

The difficulty in doing so is that both points of the argument are very clear. (1) Pius IX laid down the general principle (on the categories of teaching Catholics are obliged to adhere to) and (2) the teachings of Catholic theologians on baptism of blood and baptism of desire (I cite 26, including St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus) fall into that category.

So  you need have no fear that the Dimonds, etc. may be correct, because the conclusion that flows from (1) and (2) is ironclad, and cannot be overcome except by rejecting the fundamental principles of theological science.

And if you have scruple problems, you may want to look at a short article I wrote on it a very long time ago. Many people have found it very helpful.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=4&catname=9

You are lucky to be in Philly. It's impossible to get a real Italian meal here in Cinci!

Your article has been completely refuted by Br. Michael Diamond. For those of you willing to hear the truth,  I would highly recommend reading Diamonds rebuttal to Fr. Cekada's erroneous proposition. You will clearly see Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he quotes.

Attached you will find the rebuttal.



Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - VoxClamantis - 01-17-2012

"Brother" Michael Dimond "beats" Fr. Cekada who has degrees in theology? I doubt it very much.

The Dimond Brothers get so much attention because they go on Coast to Coast (Art Bell's old show). Quotes get pulled from the Fathers all the time to buttress this or that position. Things have to be seen as a whole and in context and contrasted with other theologians and Fathers say.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Spencer - 01-17-2012

(01-17-2012, 12:35 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: "Brother" Michael Dimond "beats" Fr. Cekada who has degrees in theology? I doubt it very much.

The Dimond Brothers get so much attention because they go on Coast to Coast (Art Bell's old show). Quotes get pulled from the Fathers all the time to buttress this or that position. Things have to be seen as a whole and in context and contrasted with other theologians and Fathers say.

I have heard enough empty talk. Read the attached pdf. I don't care for you uniformed personal opinion of "The Dimond Brothers". I would like people who have actually read Br. Michael Diamonds rebuttal to comment. Thank you.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Spencer - 01-17-2012

(12-28-2011, 09:55 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-28-2011, 06:58 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Thank you Father.

But, I am a little confused. Why wouldn't they like you and the CMRI?

Because we both reject the standard tenets of Feeneyism.



Father, Do you believe that non-Catholics, such as Jews and Muslims, can be saved by baptism of desire?


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Parmandur - 01-17-2012

(01-17-2012, 11:18 AM)Spencer Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 09:00 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Hi Father. How would the Dimonds or other Feeneyites respond to what you state here? A response would be appreciated, as recently, Feeneyites writings and my own scrupulosity has had me in the dumps for a while (due to scruples on Baptisn of Desire and Blood, invincible ignorance, implicit faith, as well as scruples that the Dimonds et al. may be correct.)

I first published the linked article ten years ago, and no one in the Feeneyite camp that I know of has come up with a serious response.

The difficulty in doing so is that both points of the argument are very clear. (1) Pius IX laid down the general principle (on the categories of teaching Catholics are obliged to adhere to) and (2) the teachings of Catholic theologians on baptism of blood and baptism of desire (I cite 26, including St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus) fall into that category.

So  you need have no fear that the Dimonds, etc. may be correct, because the conclusion that flows from (1) and (2) is ironclad, and cannot be overcome except by rejecting the fundamental principles of theological science.

And if you have scruple problems, you may want to look at a short article I wrote on it a very long time ago. Many people have found it very helpful.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=4&catname=9

You are lucky to be in Philly. It's impossible to get a real Italian meal here in Cinci!

Your article has been completely refuted by Br. Michael Diamond. For those of you willing to hear the truth,  I would highly recommend reading Diamonds rebuttal to Fr. Cekada's erroneous proposition. You will clearly see Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he quotes.

Attached you will find the rebuttal.

Yeah, let's all listen to some false "monk" heretics.  That's a good plan.  :eyeroll:

Following EENS, Michael Dimond is on a path for Hell.  Listening to his thoughts on the topic is paradoxical.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Spencer - 01-17-2012

(01-17-2012, 03:39 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 11:18 AM)Spencer Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 09:00 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Hi Father. How would the Dimonds or other Feeneyites respond to what you state here? A response would be appreciated, as recently, Feeneyites writings and my own scrupulosity has had me in the dumps for a while (due to scruples on Baptisn of Desire and Blood, invincible ignorance, implicit faith, as well as scruples that the Dimonds et al. may be correct.)

I first published the linked article ten years ago, and no one in the Feeneyite camp that I know of has come up with a serious response.

The difficulty in doing so is that both points of the argument are very clear. (1) Pius IX laid down the general principle (on the categories of teaching Catholics are obliged to adhere to) and (2) the teachings of Catholic theologians on baptism of blood and baptism of desire (I cite 26, including St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus) fall into that category.

So  you need have no fear that the Dimonds, etc. may be correct, because the conclusion that flows from (1) and (2) is ironclad, and cannot be overcome except by rejecting the fundamental principles of theological science.

And if you have scruple problems, you may want to look at a short article I wrote on it a very long time ago. Many people have found it very helpful.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=4&catname=9

You are lucky to be in Philly. It's impossible to get a real Italian meal here in Cinci!

Your article has been completely refuted by Br. Michael Diamond. For those of you willing to hear the truth,  I would highly recommend reading Diamonds rebuttal to Fr. Cekada's erroneous proposition. You will clearly see Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he quotes.

Attached you will find the rebuttal.

Yeah, let's all listen to some false "monk" heretics.  That's a good plan.   :eyeroll:

Following EENS, Michael Dimond is on a path for Hell.  Listening to his thoughts on the topic is paradoxical.

Following a defined dogma of the faith "Michael dimond is on a path for hell".
Thats nonsense.


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - Parmandur - 01-17-2012

(01-17-2012, 07:14 PM)Spencer Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 03:39 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 11:18 AM)Spencer Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 09:00 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Hi Father. How would the Dimonds or other Feeneyites respond to what you state here? A response would be appreciated, as recently, Feeneyites writings and my own scrupulosity has had me in the dumps for a while (due to scruples on Baptisn of Desire and Blood, invincible ignorance, implicit faith, as well as scruples that the Dimonds et al. may be correct.)

I first published the linked article ten years ago, and no one in the Feeneyite camp that I know of has come up with a serious response.

The difficulty in doing so is that both points of the argument are very clear. (1) Pius IX laid down the general principle (on the categories of teaching Catholics are obliged to adhere to) and (2) the teachings of Catholic theologians on baptism of blood and baptism of desire (I cite 26, including St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus) fall into that category.

So  you need have no fear that the Dimonds, etc. may be correct, because the conclusion that flows from (1) and (2) is ironclad, and cannot be overcome except by rejecting the fundamental principles of theological science.

And if you have scruple problems, you may want to look at a short article I wrote on it a very long time ago. Many people have found it very helpful.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=4&catname=9

You are lucky to be in Philly. It's impossible to get a real Italian meal here in Cinci!

Your article has been completely refuted by Br. Michael Diamond. For those of you willing to hear the truth,  I would highly recommend reading Diamonds rebuttal to Fr. Cekada's erroneous proposition. You will clearly see Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he quotes.

Attached you will find the rebuttal.

Yeah, let's all listen to some false "monk" heretics.  That's a good plan.   :eyeroll:

Following EENS, Michael Dimond is on a path for Hell.  Listening to his thoughts on the topic is paradoxical.

Following a defined dogma of the faith "Michael dimond is on a path for hell".
Thats nonsense.

For those outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.
Michael Dimond has put himself outside of the Catholic Church.

Ergo...


Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - VoxClamantis - 01-17-2012

EENS is a dogma of the Church. Understanding what that means, exactly, is where the problems lie.