Diamond brothers disaster damage control
#1
When I speak to traditionalist Catholics who are well-read, I often sense the influence of Mike and Peter Dimond.  I think many read those works, and the ensuing attitude follows.  When they attempt to expose the heresies of Vatican II, they are not doing it according to Catholic theology, but rather by the pride of know-it-all converts.  It's similar to Scott Hahn and Gerry Mastics approach's to Catholicism.  When hearing them speak, you get a sense that, these people definitely used to be protestant ministers.  It's how they do their theology, how they think.  Especially with Gerry Matatics.  One get's a sense of a biblical fundamentalism, masked by a magisterial fundamentalism.  Now, I hear Peter Dimond is attempting to explain greek meanings of words in his videos.  He doesn't know Greek.  The brothers Diamond rarely concede points of doctrine to any outside of their monastery.  They blacken peoples names on the internet, and keep them up for all to see.  And the way the do their theology, from quote upon quote, with things that seem to be contradictory, is black.  It's just darkness.  It causes confusion amongst so many people, and they are never wrong.  Haven't we all met people out there, especially atheists, who are right at all costs, never let anyone have the last word, despite even an agreement or any other situation where blame can be assigned https://snaptube.cam/ 9apps.

There was another sedevacantist blog out there about 5 years ago or so, that claimed that Pius X was the last Pope.  They had the same style of ecclesiastical reasoning, pitting quotes of DZ against quotes in Vatican II and other places that seemed contradictory to the amateur theologian or philosopher.  And, also I have heard the Dimond brothers speak poorly about philosophy, even Catholic philosophy, but I don't mean to encourage them.

I think we must remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council.  Few amateur theologians, lay people, on this forum and others, know what pastoral theology is.  Pastoral theology, which is what this council is all about, is tough to hear sometimes.  But there are some things in pastoral theology that are difficult to bear, especially for lay people.  Lay people want things frank and plain many times.  That is why we have Catechisms.  The Vatican II council was a pastoral council, and as such, it is intended primarily for the pastors of our Church, for pastoral reasons, and the council itself being the pastoral theology.

You see, in a certain sense, the Muslims, they do worship the same God, in a sense.  The God of Abraham, they claim is their God, and we also worship the God of Abraham.  It is that precise sense which the council affirms, and this can be necessary when you are part of world governance and diplomacy and peace keeping in a world where the Pope must appeal to every man on earth, as holding that office which calls all to join one fold.  Obviously, the Muslims are very confused about who the messengers really are, but they do profess to believe in the God of Abraham.

Put that in front of the Pete and Mike Dimond and they run away with it, deny the sense it which it was intended, and throw 5 opposite quotes which come in DZ which sound like they contradict, but they do not.  They are missing the necessity of a living magisterium, which is the problem with all sedevacantists.  They have not even the appearance of authority in their Chapels.

The council was pastoral. 
[-] The following 1 user Likes challa's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#2
To be fair, the Dimond bros are Feeneyites, so they believe that if you die without water baptism you will be in hell. Even if you live a spotless life. Which is an odd position considering that the thief who died on the cross next to our Lord was promised to be in heaven thereafter for his desire of salvation. So they're already in error from the outset.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (St. Matt. 7:15)

"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole series of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, taint the real and simple Faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition." - Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Zedta
Reply
#3
(11-18-2020, 07:40 PM)challa Wrote: I think we must remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council.  Few amateur theologians, lay people, on this forum and others, know what pastoral theology is.  Pastoral theology, which is what this council is all about, is tough to hear sometimes.  But there are some things in pastoral theology that are difficult to bear, especially for lay people.  Lay people want things frank and plain many times.  That is why we have Catechisms.  The Vatican II council was a pastoral council, and as such, it is intended primarily for the pastors of our Church, for pastoral reasons, and the council itself being the pastoral theology.

I have no desire to defend fake Benedictine monks, so please don't read this as such.

Only someone who has never studied theology or the actual history of Vatican II could suggest that Vatican II is based on "Pastoral Theology."

I would know, because while I was in the seminary I studied three years of "Pastoral Theology" which is primarily about the application of moral and doctrinal theology to particular souls. Thus it concerns the practical details surrounding the rites of the Sacraments, the application of Masses, how to guide souls in the confessional, principles of Spiritual Direction, etc.

The actual history of Vatican II shows that despite having been carefully prepared and clear vetted doctrinal schemas drawn up, the liberals with the support of John XXIII torpedoed these schemas and put hastily prepared erroneous ones in place which did not need doctrinal accuracy because these documents were not meant as theological treatises, but as statements to the world, so the average man could understand.

As a counter-proposal before John XXIII threw away the prepared schemas, Msgr Lefebvre suggested two sets of documents : one doctrinal, and a second which was prepared like a catechism which could be the public message, protected by the theological documents. It was not accepted and the public message documents were the only ones approved. John XXIII and the Council Fathers from their own words and actions clearly intended to speak to the world, not to "pastors".

(11-18-2020, 07:40 PM)challa Wrote: You see, in a certain sense, the Muslims, they do worship the same God, in a sense.  The God of Abraham, they claim is their God, and we also worship the God of Abraham.  It is that precise sense which the council affirms, and this can be necessary when you are part of world governance and diplomacy and peace keeping in a world where the Pope must appeal to every man on earth, as holding that office which calls all to join one fold.  Obviously, the Muslims are very confused about who the messengers really are, but they do profess to believe in the God of Abraham.

Muslims worship the same God as Christians in the same sense that Zeus is a god.

The God of Abraham is the Trinity. Christ is God. Muslims reject the Trinity. Muslims reject Christ (as God). Muslims therefore reject God and so cannot worship the true God.

Before the Popes started saying such blasphemous things, the Church was having no issue with converts. Now, for every person who converts to Catholicism in the U.S. 6 people leave. Muslim conversions have also not increased.
[-] The following 6 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, Eric F, For Petes Sake, HailGilbert, jovan66102, Ptochos
Reply
#4
Weird out of the blue rant against the Dimond bros. Did they call you a name on the phone? It's OK, they did that to me too. They have solid arguments though about how VII was not a pastoral council. You should try to refute those.

"magisterial fundamentalism"
LOL

But your Vatican II-esque opinion on Muslims worshipping the same God is wrong.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
(11-18-2020, 09:39 PM)Augustinian Wrote: To be fair, the Dimond bros are Feeneyites, so they believe that if you die without water baptism you will be in hell. Even if you live a spotless life. Which is an odd position considering that the thief who died on the cross next to our Lord was promised to be in heaven thereafter for his desire of salvation. So they're already in error from the outset.



Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

The Good Thief was under the Old Law, so he spent time in Hell (Limbo of the Fathers) until Christ opened up the Gates of Heaven.
”What happened after the [Second Vatican] Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product.” -- Cardinal Ratzinger, in the preface to Klaus Gambler's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background
Reply
#5
Islam is a militant cult and a heresy.
[-] The following 5 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • Augustinian, Eric F, I am the GOAT, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#6
(11-19-2020, 06:25 AM)I am the GOAT Wrote: Weird out of the blue rant against the Dimond bros.

There is no such thing. They are heretical home-aloners.

The Dimond "Bros" in their own words:

[Image: Dimond.jpg]

Taken from here.
[-] The following 5 users Like Bonaventure's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, Pandora, Some Guy, Zedta
Reply
#7
(11-19-2020, 06:25 AM)I am the GOAT Wrote: The Good Thief was under the Old Law, so he spent time in Hell (Limbo of the Fathers) until Christ opened up the Gates of Heaven.

This is a very poor argument, since it just shows that as a grace, God can work the regeneration of baptism even when the outwards sign is not performed, which is what makes it  a need. That is why all the Church Fathers that combat the idea that baptism is not necessary for infants refer to how they also suffer from the Original Sin.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Daniel-AH's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#8
(03-15-2016, 01:09 PM)Jan313 Wrote: When I speak to traditionalist Catholics who are well-read, I often sense the influence of Mike and Peter Dimond.  I think many read those works, and the ensuing attitude follows.  When they attempt to expose the heresies of Vatican II, they are not doing it according to Catholic theology, but rather by the pride of know-it-all converts.  It's similar to Scott Hahn and Gerry Mastics approach's to Catholicism.  When hearing them speak, you get a sense that, these people definitely used to be protestant ministers.  It's how they do their theology, how they think.  Especially with Gerry Matatics.  One get's a sense of a biblical fundamentalism, masked by a magisterial fundamentalism.  Now, I hear Peter Dimond is attempting to explain greek meanings of words in his videos.  He doesn't know Greek.  The brothers Diamond rarely concede points of doctrine to any outside of their monastery.  They blacken peoples names on the internet, and keep them up for all to see.  And the way the do their theology, from quote upon quote, with things that seem to be contradictory, is black.  It's just darkness.  It causes confusion amongst so many people, and they are never wrong.  Haven't we all met people out there, especially atheists, who are right at all costs, never let anyone have the last word, despite even an agreement or any other situation where blame can be assigned.

There was another sedevacantist blog out there about 5 years ago or so, that claimed that Pius X was the last Pope.  They had the same style of ecclesiastical reasoning, pitting quotes of DZ against quotes in Vatican II and other places that seemed contradictory to the amateur theologian or philosopher.  And, also I have heard the Dimond brothers speak poorly about philosophy, even Catholic philosophy, but I don't mean to encourage them.

I think we must remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council.  Few amateur theologians, lay people, on this forum and others, know what pastoral theology is.  Pastoral theology, which is what this council is all about, is tough to hear sometimes.  But there are some things in pastoral theology that are difficult to bear, especially for lay people.  Lay people want things frank and plain many times.  That is why we have Catechisms.  The Vatican II council was a pastoral council, and as such, it is intended primarily for the pastors of our Church, for pastoral reasons, and the council itself being the pastoral theology.

You see, in a certain sense, the Muslims, they do worship the same God, in a sense.  The God of Abraham, they claim is their God, and we also worship the God of Abraham.  It is that precise sense which the council affirms, and this can be necessary when you are part of world governance and diplomacy and peace keeping in a world where the Pope must appeal to every man on earth, as holding that office which calls all to join one fold.  Obviously, the Muslims are very confused about who the messengers really are, but they do profess to believe in the God of Abraham.

Put that in front of the Pete and Mike Dimond and they run away with it, deny the sense it which it was intended, and throw 5 opposite quotes which come in DZ which sound like they contradict, but they do not.  They are missing the necessity of a living magisterium, which is the problem with all sedevacantists.  They have not even the appearance of authority in their Chapels.

The council was pastoral. 

Question: Why are you posting a copypasta from four years ago?

Answer: Because you are of bad will.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)