CNN reporter lies about Dimond brothers
#91
(12-21-2010, 08:12 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I would appreciate that if you continue to have issues with my posting and believe that I am violating the forum rules, that you would send me a PM telling me so instead of badmouthing me to others on a thread.

OK, what I should have done was restricted my answer to ACT to him rather than listing who I believed was engaged in it.  That is my fault for not thinking it through clearly, and I apologize for dragging your name into this.  In addition, you are correct, when I asked you to stop, you did, and thank you for that.
Reply
#92
(12-22-2010, 08:50 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 08:12 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I would appreciate that if you continue to have issues with my posting and believe that I am violating the forum rules, that you would send me a PM telling me so instead of badmouthing me to others on a thread.

OK, what I should have done was restricted my answer to ACT to him rather than listing who I believed was engaged in it.  That is my fault for not thinking it through clearly, and I apologize for dragging your name into this.  In addition, you are correct, when I asked you to stop, you did, and thank you for that.

Thanks.  I apologize again for causing any problems on the forum.
Reply
#93
(12-22-2010, 11:33 AM)ies0716 Wrote:
(12-22-2010, 08:50 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 08:12 PM)ies0716 Wrote: I would appreciate that if you continue to have issues with my posting and believe that I am violating the forum rules, that you would send me a PM telling me so instead of badmouthing me to others on a thread.

OK, what I should have done was restricted my answer to ACT to him rather than listing who I believed was engaged in it.  That is my fault for not thinking it through clearly, and I apologize for dragging your name into this.  In addition, you are correct, when I asked you to stop, you did, and thank you for that.

Thanks.  I apologize again for causing any problems on the forum.

You know, TCT was a WAY better acronym than ACT.
Reply
#94
(12-21-2010, 02:07 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 01:33 PM)ies0716 Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 01:18 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Sede's aren't the only ones who believe the NO is invalid and sinful.

This is true of individuals.  The only "organized" groups that claim the NO is invalid, though, are sede groups or quasi-sede groups like SSPV.  SSPX goes out of their way to admit that the NO is valid on their website, and Apb. Lefebvre was adamant that the NO was a valid Mass as well.  The question of "sinfulness" of the NO is a different one, and there are many positions on it that are within the valid realm of debate among those who believe the Pope is still the Pope.  I believe that the SSPX position is that one isn't obligated to attend the NO Mass, but I still don't think they say that it is sinful to do so.

I think the Archbishop held that the Mass was valid in form and matter.  However, in A Bishop Speaks, he says in several talks that as the older generation of priests is replaced with new priests who have been entirely malformed, the valid intention of the Priest to do what the Church does and offer the sacrifice of calvary will become more and more dubious. 

There can't be much argument about that.  I've never argued that every NO offered is valid, given these issues - who would?  (Of course it would be silly to argue that every Tridentine Rite Mass ever offered was valid or every Mass before that Rite was codified either!  Not that the post-conciliar environment is anything like the time preceding it and there ever would have been a material worry about a priest having proper intent as there admittedly is now.)

Whether or not a particular individual Mass is offered validly is a completely separate issue from whether or not the rite itself is invalid.  In arguing the latter one is arguing that the Church Herself has promulgated an invalid rite of the Mass (obviously), something that would seem at the very best to reduce the doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Church to something entirely meaningless.  Arguments that this isn't the case because the new Rite wasn't promulgated "infallibly" or authoritatively are silly - if the supreme pontiff promulgating a rite of Mass is not an official action of the Church than nothing is. 

The newer priests now (the Archbishop's comments being a bit dated) are actually far more orthodox than the preceding generation.  The ranks of hippie V2 priests are dying out and not being replenished.
Reply
#95
(12-20-2010, 04:53 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: "People should be able to trust the government." 

She needs to put down the crack pipe.



She's right,in theory people SHOULD be able to trust the goverment, but we all know how that turned out.........
Reply
#96
(12-22-2010, 09:21 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 02:07 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 01:33 PM)ies0716 Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 01:18 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Sede's aren't the only ones who believe the NO is invalid and sinful.

This is true of individuals.  The only "organized" groups that claim the NO is invalid, though, are sede groups or quasi-sede groups like SSPV.  SSPX goes out of their way to admit that the NO is valid on their website, and Apb. Lefebvre was adamant that the NO was a valid Mass as well.  The question of "sinfulness" of the NO is a different one, and there are many positions on it that are within the valid realm of debate among those who believe the Pope is still the Pope.  I believe that the SSPX position is that one isn't obligated to attend the NO Mass, but I still don't think they say that it is sinful to do so.

I think the Archbishop held that the Mass was valid in form and matter.  However, in A Bishop Speaks, he says in several talks that as the older generation of priests is replaced with new priests who have been entirely malformed, the valid intention of the Priest to do what the Church does and offer the sacrifice of calvary will become more and more dubious. 

There can't be much argument about that.  I've never argued that every NO offered is valid, given these issues - who would?  (Of course it would be silly to argue that every Tridentine Rite Mass ever offered was valid or every Mass before that Rite was codified either!  Not that the post-conciliar environment is anything like the time preceding it and there ever would have been a material worry about a priest having proper intent as there admittedly is now.)

Whether or not a particular individual Mass is offered validly is a completely separate issue from whether or not the rite itself is invalid.  In arguing the latter one is arguing that the Church Herself has promulgated an invalid rite of the Mass (obviously), something that would seem at the very best to reduce the doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Church to something entirely meaningless.  Arguments that this isn't the case because the new Rite wasn't promulgated "infallibly" or authoritatively are silly - if the supreme pontiff promulgating a rite of Mass is not an official action of the Church than nothing is. 

The newer priests now (the Archbishop's comments being a bit dated) are actually far more orthodox than the preceding generation.  The ranks of hippie V2 priests are dying out and not being replenished.

The above comment I believe is true, though one discouraging aspect about the younger priests (in my opinion) is that many of them seem to think it is all the same.  Thus we appear to be heading for a period of irksome hybridism before the true dawn.

Concerning the validity of a priest's intention, I believe that the old Mass in its prayers explicitly expresses the intention behind it and thus the priest is doing what the Church intends as long as he offers the old Mass correctly.  He is consciously lying if he has some other intention.  The new mass does not explicitly express its own finality, at least not in the way that the old does, and so form and intention are related.

I am in general agreement with several traditionalist authors who assert that whether the new Mass is objectively pleasing to God (valid or not) is the central issue.  Is it a worthy sacrifice?

Ultimately, the Church is going to pronounce judgment on such matters in better times.  For individuals, the issue at hand is how to protect and guard one's faith and the faith of one's family.
Reply
#97
I list the heresies of the Dimond brothers in Appendix C of my website  > >  Immaculata-one.com

1. Dimond heresy: They state that there is such a thing as "material heresy" (just not knowing, erring in good faith, etc.) and state that "material heretics" can get to Heaven. This is completely false. The words "material heretic" or "material heresy" do not occur in the text of any of the 20 Catholic worldwide Councils and these terms are not in the Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma. Not once. If "material heresy" was Catholic teaching it would have to be in these writings.
See Dogma on Section 5.1 which refutes "material heresy".

2. Dimond heresy: The Dimonds send people into the meeting halls of the "sspx" ... who are in heresy against the Jurisdiction Dogma, the Governance Dogma, the Water Baptism Dogma, the Salvation Dogma, and the Automatic Excommunication Dogma. The Dimonds send people into this heretic cult and say: "Just don't them money, and its okay". Well it isn't okay because physical participation in a heretical society causes your automatic excommunication. See Section 105.

3. Dimond heresy: Believe that post age of reason children (past 7 years old) who are physically participating in heretic cults are not automatically excommunicated. The Catholic teaching is that post age of reason baptized persons are automatically removed from the Catholic Church. See Section 13.2.

4. Dimond heresy: Believe that Canonizations are infallible, they are not ... Infallibility only applies to Faith and Morals on subjects which were addressed before the end of public revelation in 99 A.D. -- see Section 104.

5. Dimond heresy: They are in heresy against the Jurisdiction and Governance Dogma in that they are running a compound using the word monastery while Fred and Robert (their real names) call themselves "Brothers". There is no-one to grant such jurisdiction. See Section 87

6. Dimond heresy: They send people into the vatican-2 meeting halls, and go themselves and falsely state that: "It's okay as long as you don't give them money". See Sections 12 and 13.2.

Mike
Our Lady of Conquest
Pray for us








Reply
#98
So the sspx is in heresy? Interesting what pope told u that?
Reply
#99
I do not know whether Denzinger uses the term material heresy, but I am certain that it uses good faith (which implies material heresy):

The Sources of Catholic Dogma Wrote:Reply of the Holy Office from 17 May 1916:

2181a  I. Whether when material schismatics at the point of death, in good faith seek either absolution or extreme unction, these sacraments can be conferred on them without their renouncing errors?-- Reply:In the negative, but that it be required that they reject errors as best they can, and make a profession of faith.

II. Whether absolution and extreme unction can be conferred on schismatics at the point of death when unconscious?--Reply:Conditionally, in the affirmative, especially if from additional circumstances it can be conjectured that they at least implicitly reject their errors, yet effectually removing scandal, at least by manifesting to bystanders that they accept the Church and have returned at the last moment to unity.

If there are "material schismatics," then there can also be "material heretics," no?

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php

Moreover, Prümmer does make the distinction between formal and material heresy (cf. Handbook of Moral Theology, sec. 202, p. 88: 1955).  Rev. Slater likewise distinguishes between formal and material heresy (cf. A Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries, vol. I, bk. V, chap. III, p. 111: 5th ed., 1925).  Tanquerey, Ott and Herve all refer to material heresy or at least the formal sin of infidelity* (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, sec. 389, p. 235; Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, bk. IV, Part II, chap. V, p. 311; Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, sec. 335, p. 369*).

http://www.archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf...1_djvu.txt

The Catholic Encyclopedia (J. Wilhelm, 1910) also makes the distinction between formal and material heresy.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law, in mentioning pertinacious heresy (can. 1325 § 2), implies the distinction between formal and material heresy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_I

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/...dy_003.htm
Reply
(01-04-2011, 09:08 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: So the sspx is in heresy? Interesting what pope told u that?

I think we might agree on something for once DK: Mike44 is drinking too much Kool-Aid if you know what I mean. With his immaculata-one website, he seems to have set himself up as a new expert on all things 'truly' Catholic. With the recent death of Lucian Pulvermacher (so-called 'Pope Pius XII' of the conclavist 'True Catholic Church'), perhaps Mike44 can apply to be the new (Anti-)Pope of the 'True' Catholic Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)