It is currently Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:21 am




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable? 
Author Message

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 268
New post Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Several years ago John Daly sent me an email in which he answered someone's query regarding Michael Dimond and his writings. Because he and his brother Peter have been, and still are, propagating error and are a danger to the faith I thought this email would be of value:




Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for your courteous reply and your edifying gesture of removing the Dimond material pending clarification.

Unfortunately I lack the time to undertake a serious evaluation of Michael Dimond's writings, but I shall try to crash out a few rough notes here which may help you understand the problem.

First a few principles.

1. To write in public on matters of theological controversy it is necessary to be competent. That competence comprises the following elements:
a. Correct use of the mind - thinking straight. Distinguishing between a valid and an invalid argument; identifying a convincing proof, a probable proof, suggestive evidence, tenuous possibility and outright sophistry.

b. Sound general education: background familiarity with philosophy, history, etc.

c. The ability to write clear and correct English communicating exactly what one means.

d. Good all-round familiarity with all aspects of Catholic doctrine.

e. Ability to read the Church's language: Latin.

f. A profound knowledge of the specific subjects being written about.

g. Integrity. I do not mean by this a high degree of sanctity. I mean the minimal austere uprightness that would never twist the truth, abuse logic or muster up unjustified certitude on doubtful matters and would always retract any mistake made.

h. Orthodoxy - perfect submission to what the Church's authorities teach (which entails knowing what Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept as sound doctrine and the different ways in which the Church teaches us).

And Catholic controversial writing must similarly match certain minimal standards...
a. It must be clear.
b. It must be amply based on authorities with due references.
c. Its facts must be true and its arguments valid.
d. It must avoid overstatement.
e. It must be mild and charitable in expressing disagreement with other Catholics on controverted issues.

Now as a matter of fact, Michael Diamond does not possess that competence and his writings do not display those qualities. Indeed their failure to do so is so marked that serious Catholics simply do not take him seriously. A cursory glance would suffice to show them that this is one "voice crying in the wilderness" which may safely be left in the wilderness as it has no useful role to play in promoting the common good.

Probably the most salient characteristic of Dimond's writings is the habitual pretence at having shown what he has merely alleged or has supported by entirely spurious argument.

Here is a sample from Issue 5, p. 57:

Commenting on JP2's words "...Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, who is the perfect realization of human existence" (Fides et Ratio), Dimond comments:

"There you have it! Jesus Christ is the perfect realization of human existence. Or if you prefer it another way, look up the word 'realization' in a thesaurus and you will find that it means the same thing as the word 'understanding'. Antipope John Paul II is saying that Jesus Christ is the perfect understanding of human existence."

Well, XXXXX, to borrow a phrase, there you have it!

1. Obscurity. What do the words "Or if you prefer it another way" mean here? We haven't had "it" any way yet; we have just had JP2's words repeated with no indication of what is wrong with them.

2. Absurdity. To find out what a word means, if we are in doubt, we look it up in a dictionary, not a thesaurus, which is a collection of words of broadly similar, but not necessarily identical, meaning.

3. Further absurdity. Some words have several meanings. Finding in a thesaurus, or even a dictionary, that a word can mean one thing, does not preclude its perhaps having a second meaning.

4. Ignorance. As a matter of fact, the word "realization" is one of those words that has more than one meaning. Admittedly it often approximates to "understanding", but at other times it means "making real" or "giving actuality to".

5. Fallacious argument. Diamond presumes that JP2 means "understanding" when he says "realization". In fact, Diamond's case here amounts to tacitly admitting that in order to expose the heresy he believes is contained in JP2's words, he has to change those words to others which better suit his objective - a procedure justified on the basis of his thesaurus trick. Common sense shows where we shall end up if we may use a thesaurus to alter words in the statements of others to some other word included in the thesaurus as having a broadly similar meaning.

6. Factual error. Quite clearly the meaning intended by JP2 here is not "understanding" but "making real" or "actualisation".

7. False witness. While JP2's words here are not in conformity with traditional Catholic expression, and could be said to convey a whiff of Gnosticism, nevertheless, they are not, for a change, heretical. Human existence has indeed never been more perfectly made real than in Jesus Christ.

Such sophistry is rife in Dimond's writings. Four pages earlier you will find the following:

Commenting on JP2's words "Especially man must be given and restored to God, if he is to be fully restored to himself." (Redemptionis Donum), Dimond remarks:

"He says that man must be restored to God if he is to be restored to himself. This clearly indicates that man is God."

Non sequitur. It indicates nothing of the sort. Neither clearly nor obscurely. The inference is utterly unjustified by the text. A lost walking stick must be restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be restored to the elderly resident who lost it. Does that "clearly indicate" that the elderly resident is the matron? Restoration to A is stated to be a condition of restoration to B. Dimond pretends that this logically implies that A and B are identical. It implies no such thing.

It is no defence to say that JP2 does indeed believe that man is God and has said this elsewhere. He does not say it here.

And if I wished to devote a couple of hours to the task I could find fifty similar sophistries in this one study.

Please do not misunderstand me, XXXX: the vast bulk of the JP2 texts Dimond has diligently collected in this issue are indeed unorthodox, and taken as a whole they constitute an overwhelming case that JP2 does indeed habitually hold and teach a heresy according to which Christ's incarnation directly divinised the whole of mankind, rather than merely making possible the divinisation realised by grace in favour of the just.

But Dimond's own commentaries are so exaggerated, so tendentious, so slapdash, so wanting in logical rigour or theological exactitude as to be worse than worthless.

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed (and there are various answers to Dimond already on the Web, contributed by JP2ers). And in any event, it will be no merit to anyone on the Day of Judgment to have been convinced by Dimond's shoddy reasoning to reject the Polish heresiarch.

Now, here is a passage from issue No.3, p. 30. Dimond is commenting on a text from the Council of Trent (Chapter 4, Session 6, On Justification) which he claims has been mistranslated.

"Mistranslation...'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 this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it...'

"One who reads the mistranslation of this passage from Trent would probably think that Trent is teaching that one can enter into the state of grace either through Baptism or by the desire for it. However an accurate translation renders the meaning of Trent totally different. In fact the original Latin of the passage 'except through the laver of regeneration or the desire for it,' is 'sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto'.

"True Translation - 'and this translation...cannot be effected WITHOUT...the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'...

"...The subtle change of 'without' to 'except through' changes the entire meaning of the statement. The word 'without' used in this passage means that justification CANNOT happen without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Trent is simply distinguishing between the requirements for infant baptism as opposed to [sic] that of adults. Infants cannot desire baptism. Therefore in their case only the laver of regeneration is required to effect the sacrament. Adults on the other hand must have the desire for the sacrament that they are receiving..."
XXXX, the mind capable of conceiving the ideas herein expressed is a ruined instrument for the apprehension of truth. And the mind capable of being deceived by them is sadly lacking in discernment, to say the least.

Trent dogmatically teaches that justification is impossible without either (a) Baptism, or (b) desire for Baptism.

Dimond brazenly declares that it means no such thing. It means, in his view, to affirm that justification is in all cases impossible without baptism, and that in addition to baptism, desire for the sacrament is also needed in the case of adults.

Now the word "or" does not have that meaning. Hunt in as many Thesauri as you will. The Dimond meaning is not even, at a stretch, a possible meaning of the text he is writing about. Trent's words cannot possibly bear the meaning Dimond attaches to them.

The person who "changes the entire meaning of the statement" is Dimond.

Here is a comparison. A nation's laws affirm that no foreigner may reside in it unless he is the spouse of a citizen or a naturalised citizen.

What lawyer would have the effrontery to claim that a naturalised citizen has no right of residence because he is unmarried? Or that the spouse of a citizen must leave because he is not naturalised?

Now suppose, to indulge Mr Dimond, that in fact, in this land, adult foreigners are never allowed to become naturalised citizens unless they are married to a citizen, though children can be naturalised without this condition.

Plainly this does not alter the fact that the law envisages at least some possible cases in which either of the two factors suffices without the other.

But in any event, Dimond's claim is vitiated by the fact that while pontificating on alleged mistranslations of Latin, he does not actually know the language. Theologians writing in Latin (and Mr Dimond has never read one, for he does not have the ability to do so) would never dream of using the word "votum" (desire/vow) to express the intention that must be had by the recipient of a sacrament during its administration. The claim is merely ludicrous as anyone familiar with ecclesiastical Latin will confirm to you.

So we find Mr Dimond:

(a) Radically distorting the meaning of a dogma.
(b) Accusing others of radically distorting the meaning of the very dogma he is twisting in knots.
(c) Pretending to a competence in Latin he needs but does not possess.
(d) Performing intellectual acrobatics to twist meanings and logic while claiming that his crazy "interpretation" is manifestly the only correct one.
(e) Doing all the above because it doesn't suit him to believe what Trent actually defined.

Yes indeed, XXXX. That brings us to the issue of Mr Dimond's own unorthodoxy.

First we find him denying the de fide truth that Baptism of Desire suffices for justification (which even Fr Feeney accepted!), and indeed for salvation. Trent is quite clear. St Thomas is quite clear. The Doctors are quite clear. Canon Law is quite clear. Historical examples of unbaptised canonised saints are numerous and clear. The theologians are unanimous. But Dimond denies this dogma because he doesn't SEE how it is compatible with other texts. That's how heresy happens. The reason he doesn't understand is that he doesn't have the background education in philosophy and theology. Sad, but not a justification - no one invited him to adopt his present "apostolate".

(Here incidentally is what St Alphonsus has to say on the topic in his Moral Theology Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: "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”. "

For Mr Dimond, this is just proof that Doctors of the Church are not infallible and can err. The possibility that Dimond himself is not infallible and can err fails to occur to his bloated ego. What is clear is that St Alphonsus, not misled by any supposedly inexact translations, understands the Trent text in the sense that Dimond (a non-Latinist) rejects and that St Alphonsus holds as de fide a proposition that Dimond emphatically rejects as a heresy. And while the Doctors of the Church are not individually infallible (only collectively) it is quite certain that the Church does not accord the accolade of Doctor to persons who represent heresy as dogma and dogma as heresy. Plainly any humble, prudent and docile Catholic will adhere to St Alphonsus, not to Dimond - not that the Trent text is in any way ambiguous.

Moreover, it is only by a startling inconsistency, of which he must surely be conscious, that Dimond fails to brand St Alphonsus Liguori as a heretic, for in referring to contemporary Catholics he invariably calls them heretics when he thinks they err on dogmatic subjects. Of course this is particularly terrible when, as on the Baptism in voto subject, Dimond is the one who errs and those he condemns are orthodox. But even when he is right, it is a certain truth that to be a heretic there must be direct error against dogma, held with pertinacity - i.e. realisation that one's opinion conflicts with dogma. And Dimond rides roughshod over the pertinacity requirement, perhaps under the illusion that pertinacity is always presumed, whereas in fact it is presumed only where there are solid grounds for such a presumption. Thus he dismisses from the Church, as he himself admits, nearly all traditional priests, and indeed the laity.

Another grave departure from Catholic orthodoxy is found in Dimond's attitude to those papal decrees and declarations, encyclicals, etc., which fall short of the requirements for pertaining to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Dimond sees no difficulty in arguing that as they are not guaranteed by direct infallibility, they may well contain error and that Catholics are free to reject their contents, indeed sometimes bound to...

As a matter of fact, as Pope Pius XII explains in Humani Generis, and as any serious student of Catholic doctrine knows, Catholics are bound in conscience to submit both exteriorly and interiorly to these non-infallible documents also, and the words of Our Lord "He that heareth you, heareth me" apply to them. Dimond rejects that truth by a combination of ignorance and necessity, for he cannot admit a fact that would at a stroke destroy his false doctrine concerning Baptism in voto.

Another grotesque error is one that Dimond has invented himself - namely that Karol Wojtyla is himself the Antichrist in person. What emerges from his attempts to defend this error is that he has not studied Catholic doctrine about the Antichrist. He simply does not know that the Antichrist will reign politically over the whole world for 3 1/2 years, assassinate Henoch and Elias in Jerusalem, witness their resurrection, attempt to fly up to heaven himself (like Simon Magus of old) and then fall dead to the ground, struck by the breath of Christ. The Antichrist is not JP2, nor was he Paul VI as the late Bill Strojie claimed. These men were/are very wicked and were/are antichrists, but THE Antichrist is still to come (perhaps quite soon) and Mr Dimond is not helping to prepare Catholics for the event. He is merely spreading cloud and obscurity on grave matters.

Further criticisms would include Dimond's penchant for making highly controversial statements without providing adequate references and proof - for instance his claim that Baptism in voto was not mentioned in the original catechism of the Council of Trent and was added in the nineteenth century; that Baptism in voto was not mentioned in the original Catechism of St Pius X or approved by that pope, etc.

Then there are his merely misleading references. For instance, he attributes to Fr Leonard Feeney the words, "Anyone who says the New Mass is a traitor to the Catholic Faith," with a reference to From the Housetops, #24, 1983, p. 54. Incautious readers would casually assume that this was an article written by Fr Leonard Feeney to express his view. But in fact Fr Feeney was already dead. He died in 1978, though not before having himself said the New Mass. Dimond simply can't be trusted.

There we are, XXXX. I am sorry that time prevents me from being more thorough, but I think I have written enough to make it clear why I do not wish to be associated with Michael Dimond in any way.

To help you evaluate other writers on current controversies, may I suggest that you acquire a second-hand copy of Fr Edward Leen: What Is Education? and study in it what an educated Catholic mind is supposed to be like. Perhaps the most marked characteristic of the mind is that it is judicious. I would strongly recommend limiting contemporary writers you publish on your site to those to whom the word "judicious" could reasonably be applied.

Incidentally, to OCR Fr Leen's book and make it available on the Web would be a signal service to the common good.

God bless you.

In Domino et Domina,

John Daly


Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:31 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 21
New post 
I have come to the sad conclusion that the Dimond brothers (or demon brothers, as some of my friends call them) are pertinacious heretics. I see no other way of explaining their obstinate rejection of Church dogma, and their apparent private interpretation of the Council of Trent and the Fathers of the Church.

Thus, I would say their writings are about as reliable as those of other heretics such as Martin Luther or Joseph Ratzinger.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:04 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
First a few principles.

1. To write in public on matters of theological controversy it is necessary to be competent. That competence comprises the following elements:
a. Correct use of the mind - thinking straight. Distinguishing between a valid and an invalid argument; identifying a convincing proof, a probable proof, suggestive evidence, tenuous possibility and outright sophistry.

b. Sound general education: background familiarity with philosophy, history, etc.

c. The ability to write clear and correct English communicating exactly what one means.

d. Good all-round familiarity with all aspects of Catholic doctrine.

e. Ability to read the Church's language: Latin.

f. A profound knowledge of the specific subjects being written about.

g. Integrity. I do not mean by this a high degree of sanctity. I mean the minimal austere uprightness that would never twist the truth, abuse logic or muster up unjustified certitude on doubtful matters and would always retract any mistake made.

h. Orthodoxy - perfect submission to what the Church's authorities teach (which entails knowing what Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept as sound doctrine and the different ways in which the Church teaches us).

And Catholic controversial writing must similarly match certain minimal standards...
a. It must be clear.
b. It must be amply based on authorities with due references.
c. Its facts must be true and its arguments valid.
d. It must avoid overstatement.
e. It must be mild and charitable in expressing disagreement with other Catholics on controverted issues.



I was wondering how the average layman can identify 'reliable' sources. Speaking only for myself, but perhaps this may include others, I am perfectly incapable of participating in theological arguments and, perhaps, what is worse, probably just as incapable at identifying competent sources. Since most laymen don't have these qualifications, how do we protect ourselves from arguments that may look to us valid, but don't supply convincing proof, but only tenuous at best. Some clerics, et. al., may not have all the requirements to write on theological matters (they have good will), but do so write, and the lay people may be dragged into theological positions that are at variance with the Church because of their incompetence.

How does a lay person today identify competent sources when our Holy Mother is now silent?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
To further elaborate on my prior reply, and to bring in another topic I started (Validity or Invalidity of NO sacraments), this necessity of competence has some very real consequences right now. Earlier this year, as most of you know, the SSPX published a treatise entitled Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid. If nothing else, the SSPX could usually be counted on to have undisputed valid orders. If they act on this particular document, a real mess could ensue.

Having read this article, I was less than convinced by the author's arguments. However, I know I'm a complete dolt when it comes to matters like this. My usual barometer for gauging the Catholicity of some writing is to compare it to someone like Fr. Fahey (or a papal encyclical). When I read a papal encyclical prior to John XXIII, most times I'm left breathless with the beauty and truth of the writing and its contents. I often have to pause just to consume the majesty of the document.

Granted this article was not of the same type as the ones I just mentioned, but the arguments presented left me wondering. For example, they describe Dom Botte (the principal architect of the new Episcopal Consecration Rite) as 'competent', but then spend many paragraphs describing an outright modernist: proud, arrogant, hateful to Holy Mother Church, etc. Modernism is totally antithetical to Catholicism. So, how does the average layman treat an article like this. What if the author is wrong? What if he's right, and I don't believe it?

Secondarily, a response from a sede cleric (Absolutely Null ....), also left me wondering. I was also left unconvinced by this article. So, again, how does the average layman judge competence in weighty matters like this?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:04 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post 
Teresa, that is an excellent reply. I have followed them. And they certainly do point out with a keen sense of what they see to be orthodox and not. Apparently we do not have presently a magesterium which is capable of dispelling the errors. I have their information, but am wary as what to do with it?? Do I give scandal if I distribute their literature?? :(

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:09 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Linda wrote:
Teresa, that is an excellent reply. I have followed them. And they certainly do point out with a keen sense of what they see to be orthodox and not. Apparently we do not have presently a magesterium which is capable of dispelling the errors. I have their information, but am wary as what to do with it?? Do I give scandal if I distribute their literature?? :(


Linda,

I fear you may have misunderstood my first reply. I was in no way supporting the Brothers Dimond, and their position. I was only trying to find out how laymen judge theological competence when we don't have our Holy Mother Church as sure guide. Sorry, for the confusion :oops: .

BTW, I do think you would give scandal by distributing their (I think you mean Dimond Brothers) literature. I'd trash it, if I were you (just my opinion, however).

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:17 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 175
New post Recognising competence
Dear Teresa,

It seems to me as though your last post but one already went along way towards answering your own question. You habitually try to compare authors you are unsure of with standards you are sure of - papal encyclicals, saints, writers who rely heavily on papal sources, St Thomas and other saints. We could all safely follow that rule.

Perhaps another step is to check whether we need to be using so many contemporary writers whose status is not guaranteed, be they good or bad. I would say it is a safe rule that only a minority of our religious reading should be drawn from periodicals, forums, blogs or recently published books. Let the bulk of our diet be solid pre-Vatican II authors, the older and more approved the better. Let's really develop a taste for those encyclicals, for Dom Gueranger, for Fr Fahey, for St Thomas Aquinas, for St Alphonsus Liguori, for the Gospel soundly commented, for the Fathers.

After all, if these men lead us astray we may safely say to our divine Judge - Lord I erred because I followed those your Church most told me to trust. If on the other hand we err through placing unwarranted trust in contemporary writers, we shall not have that defence. From the slick Michael Davies to the hectoring Dimonds, from blatant frauds like Chris Ferrara to better-disguised wolves such as...well, never mind: we seldom have any real need for their views.

Granted there are contemporary topics that merit study and for obvious reasons are not directly tackled by pre-conciliar authors: you mentioned the problem of whether the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid. The problem of the V2 popes is another. Which Masses one can in conscience attend is another.

Here there is no simple solution and one has to do one's best to follow the arguments for it is never safe to nail one's colours uncritically to the mast of any single living author. On the consecration rite, we have the obvious fact that we must steer clear unless all serious objections to validity have been very clearly and satisfyingly refuted. The refutation we are offered is based on the idea that the supposed "essential form" of the new rite, though different from that Pius XII declared necessary, closely resembles forms used in the East. On closer inspection it emerges that these forms have not been stated by the Church to be the essential form of those rites, that the resemblance is not that close, that the alleged historical Eastern forms are scholarly constructs rather than texts we know to have existed and been approved as valid, etc.

Surely this is one case where even if one retains a theoretical doubt there is little doubt as to which course is safe to follow in practice.

John


Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 268
New post 
Does anyone know it the Dimonds still believe that JPII was THE Antichrist?


Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:19 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 268
New post Wonderful letter regarding Baptism by John Lane
Dear X,

<SNIP>

On the so-called "three baptisms," that is a polemical term invented to
prejudice the mind against the common doctrine of the theologians. There is
only one baptism. There are three ways of receiving the grace of baptism.
I have read all of the arguments. I read them many years ago and
periodically somebody pokes them under my nose again and I review them. The
problem is not that the arguments are implausible - they are obviously very
plausible as they have convinced good and intelligent men. But the problem
is that these arguments are not made by ANY authorised expert in the Faith
whose job it was to explain the Faith. Satan loves to trap us however he
can, and his favourite (because it was his first) trick is to appeal to our
vanity. He convinces us that we are competent to examine the arguments
ourselves, instead of relying upon the theologians. We are "good" he tells
us quietly. We want only to know the truth, he whispers. We should look at
these arguments and see if they are sound, he urges us. No! We should ask
the proponents of these strange theories to quote the theologians or stand
self-condemned. And let them not quote a Father or two, and think that they
have satisfied the requirements of humility. No, they must quote
theologians from the past five hundred years and then, when they find that
they cannot, they must admit that if their oh-so-plausible arguments are
sound, then the Church herself has permitted her authorised experts to teach
gross error for hundreds of years and she has never stopped them or even
complained!

Such a church may suit people who want to do their own theology - be their
own gods, in fact - but it doesn't suit Catholics, for whom the hierarchy is
the proximate rule of faith to which we must conform our beliefs, however
humiliating or painful it is to do so.

Sorry for the lecture. Your sentiments in general are really very Catholic
and beautiful, and I do hope you can at least see that those of us who
refuse to discuss the BOD/BOB arguments are not necessarily lacking charity,
but rather we are zealous for the purity of the Faith and for the honour of
Holy Mother Church, which is insulted by those who accuse her of not
noticing error and heresy being taught in all of her schools and seminaries
for hundreds of years. That is a blasphemy which pious ears should find
deeply offensive.

Yours in Christ our Glorious King,
John Lane.


Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:40 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 268
New post Peter Dimond on Saint Alphonsus
Back in December 1999 I had an informal debate with Peter Dimond over his heretical denial of baptism of blood and desire. When I brought to his attention that Saint Alphonsus held that BOD was de fide, this was his response:

"Clearly then, baptism of desire is incompatible with these Papal pronouncements, and if St. Alphonsus were alive I would point that out to him, and he would agree, as he now agrees with us in Heaven."


Yes, you read that correctly, Pete seems to think that he is somehow superior to Saint Alphonsus when it comes to theology! I ask any good and rational thinking Catholic; how can anyone take these blokes seriously?


Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:25 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 268
New post 
I have yet to see the Dimond brothers make a retraction when they are shown to be in error. For example, when I wrote to inform them that John Paul II could justify his use of a "papal" chair with an inverted cross as being the famous "Mamertine cross," I received no response and they continue to use it as an example of JPII's supposed Satanism. You see, I would not be too surprised if it were revealed that JPII was in fact a Satanist, I just despise deceptive arguments that attempt to bolster one's position when in actuality they discredit it. Other un-retracted errors include believing that JPII was THE Antichrist and of course baptism of desire and blood.

This brings me to a newly discovered one: Paul VI and his wearing of the rationale or the "breastplate" of the Jewish high-priest. They have several pictures on their web site demonstrating Paul VI's obvious use of the high-priest's rationale. The first thing that pops up in the mind of a traditional Catholic is that this is further proof of the unorthodoxy of Paul VI and his new church. Now, if the Dimond brothers were the great researchers and teachers that they clam to be they would have found out that the rationale was in fact not only used by certain Roman Catholic bishops, but was part of the pontifical robes of the Roman Pontiff himself. The proof of this is shown on pages 309-311 of the American Ecclesiastical Review Volume XXIII.

Page 310: "The evidence is quite clear. Not only is the breast-plate of the Supreme Pontiff mentioned among the liturgical vestments of the Christian Church by such writers as Amalarius, Fortunatus, Rhabanus, Maurus, and Durandus, but there are also a number of wall paintings and sculptures, previous to the thirteenth century, in which the pectoral shield (or choschen mishpat of the Hebrew high-priest) is pictured as part of the pontifical robes. Thus, in one of the arches of the south entrance to the Rheims Cathedral there stands the statue of a pontiff, above life size and wearing the rationale judicii, the mysterious Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament."


Last edited by Recusant on Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:12 am
Profile
New post 
Thank you for your critique of the Dimond brothers, Dr. Tardugno. I have at times wondered if they were themselves "double agents" of some sort. When the average conservative Catholic hears the word "sedevacante' he thinks Dimond Brothers. The huge amount of movies, magazines and tapes, the interview on an extremely popular radio show - seem almost to be what has been called a "limited hangout". This "limited hangout" is a psycholgical manipulation; the purpose is to control the very people who need to know the truth of a matter. Using vivid, emotionally charged images and language, the limted hangout "reveals all" and satisfies the legitimate search for truth with a longed-for sense of the chaos being under control. The ultimate purpose is to obscure the very truth a person of good will was searching for, and to make all people who have come to the conclusions drawn look downright crazy. I think it's safe to say that the Dimond Brothers have had a hand in discouraging nice people from asking each other, "Would the Holy Ghost actually allow a real Pope to do such a thing?".


Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:12 am

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 175
New post An old letter
I am posting here an old letter which does not directly concern the Dimonds but comments on some of the same errors. It may prove useful to someone.
I have changed my correspondent's name to "XXX".

Dear XXX,

Before embarking on any attempt to explain why I believe what I believe, I should like first to summarise what it is. I don't want you to assume that you know what my position is except insofar as I have stated it. For although I disagree with some aspects of what I understand to be your position, there are other parts of it with which I am in considerable sympathy. In particular, I am well aware that the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church has been explained away by liberal theologians who either claim (heretically) that it is subject to exceptions, or else foist on it an interpretation far different from that intended by the popes and bishops who have promulgated and defended it. On the other hand I certainly don't think it means that a person under instruction in the Catholic faith who is run over and killed while on his way to be received into the Church is necessarily damned.

Secondly, I realise that some careless writers about theology (especially vernacular writers whom I generally eschew anyhow) have made misleading statements about baptism. Some say, for instance, that there are three baptisms. Of course there are not: the New testament teaches formally that there is just one baptism as there is just one Lord and one Faith. Others say that a catechumen who dies before baptism is saved. Extraordinary! Even if he dies after baptism, we have no assurance that he is saved - much less so if he dies before it. Others again say that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Holy Church, on the other hand, follows her Divine teacher in saying that it is absolutely necessary. And so do I.

But the bad news, from your point of view, is that recognising that some of your opponents are in the wrong doesn't mean that I think you are in the right. (One of Satan's favourite tricks is to create two rival camps and convince people that they have to choose one or the other: if you're not a Democrat, you must be a Republican; if you're not a Novus-Ordo-goer, you must be SSPX; if you don't like or approve of rock music, you must like jazz; if you don't want to get married, you must be a you-know-what; if you disapprove of polluted, industrialised, chemicalised modern society, you must be a fan of the New Age, etc, etc.) The questions which remain between us are not whether there is salvation outside the Church, but exactly what is meant, for the purposes of eligibility to be saved, by being in the Church; and not whether Baptism is necessary for salvation, but in what way Baptism is necessary for salvation.

On the first of these two questions I am attaching a short study summarising what I believe to be the correct position. [See below.] Please note that this study is not a controversial document setting out to prove anything. It is purely explanatory and I offer it simply on the basis that it is as well to be clear about exactly what a man believes before grabbing him, intellectually speaking, by the throat and telling him he is wrong.

For the rest of this letter I shall now move on to the second question: the one about baptism. On this topic, I maintain that a person who dies un-baptised may yet be saved, if the other conditions of salvation are fulfilled, by virtue of his desire for baptism - God taking the will for the deed when it is no fault of the person in question that he was not yet baptised.

There are a great many Catholic authorities I could quote in defence of this position, but I am going to pluck up my courage and take my stand on the one which you have already indicated to me that you are aware of and believe to be worthless. It is the following words of the Council of Trent: "This...translation [i.e. from the state of original sin into the state of grace 'of the adoption of sons' (Romans 8:15)] after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it..." (Denzinger 796)

As you well realise, the man in the street is liable to take this as implying unmistakably that the justification of the person still in original sin may be brought about either (a) by baptism, or (b) by the desire for baptism. Hence you informed me that: "...the decree does not state that: this transition [the justification of the sinner] CAN be effected WITH the water of regeneration or the desire for it. Rather, the decree does state that this transition...canNOT be effected withOUT the water of regeneration or the desire for it."

Now, XXX, there is no doubt that what you say is true, but is the distinction you make of the slightest relevance, or are the two phrases which you so carefully distinguish in fact exactly equivalent in meaning? I maintain they are interchangeable for all practical purposes and in the judgment of any man of balanced mind, familiar with the ordinary rules of the use of language, of logic and of ecclesiastical usage - and that no one would try to suggest that the words of the decree do not imply the words of your first proposition above unless he was carefully trying to avoid admitting something which he finds uncomfortable.

Imagine you went to buy a new car and you saw a sign advising potential purchasers that "cars may not be removed from the premises without payment in cash or by a recognised credit card." Having selected your Porsche you brightly present to the salesman your platinum American Express card. He accepts it, fills in the docket and returns it to you for signature. You sign and ask for the keys of the car. "Oh no," he replies, you can't have the car for a month. I have to get in another one to replace it first."

Naturally you are aggrieved. "But look at the sign," you say, "I can take my vehicle as soon as I have paid in cash or given you my credit card." "No, no, no," replies the car-salesman, "You must be logical. The sign says that you may NOT remove your purchase withOUT cash or credit. But it does NOT say that you MAY remove it WITH cash or credit. That would be a completely gratuitous conclusion. Go back to your classes in grammar and logic. I'll give you the keys to your auto when you can promise you have read the whole of the Material Logic of John of St Thomas in the original."

Wouldn't it be fair to call that salesman a con-man, XXX? And which are worse, XXX, theological con-men or automobile con-men? Because your argument is just as bogus as the car-salesman's. It is the same argument in fact. And it completely overlooks the fact that a list of conditions may equally well be presented in positive form or negative form. (E.g. "Driving test candidates cannot be presented unless they speak English or have a translator" is the same as "Driving test candidates must either speak English or have a translator.) To suggest that the negative form does not imply the positive corollary is to accuse whoever made the original statement of playing with words in order to deceive. And the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council is not out to mislead; it is out to teach.

I will bend over backwards in your favour, XXX, and admit that I might understand your wish to evade the natural and obvious sense of the teaching of Trent, if it were something completely unique and otherwise unheard of in Catholic theology. But it isn't, is it? I am sure you know as well as I do that the possibility of the salvation of one who has not been actually baptised is unmistakably taught by St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, all theologians of recent centuries, the Roman Breviary (St Emerentiana), St Bede (Hist. Eccl., Bk 1, ch. 7), St Augustine (the greatest of the Fathers (in at least two places), St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Fulgentius, Pope Innocent II, The Code of Canon Law, etc, etc.

(Note that I have deliberately omitted St Ambrose and any other text you might be tempted to try to explain away!) And of course theologians consider that it is impossible that there should be theological error in the Breviary, Canon Law, etc. And what is more it is as sure as eggs are eggs that between the time of St Thomas and the time of the Feeney brothers no one even called into doubt the "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire", while all theologians, catechisms and the rest taught it as a matter of course. Do you really think the whole Church can err in doctrine for 700 years without anyone raising his voice to protest, not even popes and saints, XXX? Do you?

To be honest, I think that your real problem lies elsewhere. I suspect that you can't see how this text of Trent (supported by the other authorities I have referred to) can possibly mean what it quite obviously does mean. Because you see difficulties in reconciling it with other doctrines. But if that is the case, the first step is to admit honestly that you have a difficulty; not use your will to compel your intellect to assent to what you don't and can't see. That is called obscurantism, and it never yet got anyone any nearer heaven.

Our Lord indeed said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But does this actually mean, "Unless a man have water physically poured over his head subsequently to his birth, with the correct formula being pronounced by the minister at the same time, he cannot be saved"? You may think it means that, but that is an interpretation based on your own opinion. It is not the interpretation held by St Thomas who had, I expect you will agree, a greater mind than yours and greater Divine light too.

Let me quote to you what I wrote on this subject to a former friend of mine, Charles Coulombe, whom you may have heard of as he is a journalist and religious writer on your side of the Atlantic (well, actually he lives on the Pacific coast).

"On the subject of Fr Feeney you draw attention to the second canon of the Council of Trent on Baptism as being a teaching of the Church which is contradicted by the notion of baptism of desire: If anyone should say that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and should therefore twist into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost' [John 3:5], let him be anathema. "But those of us who accept the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire do not deny this. We are thoroughly persuaded that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism, just as we are thoroughly persuaded that wheaten bread is necessary for Holy Communion and that a validly ordained priest with the necessary jurisdiction is needed for the sacrament of Penance. We maintain, however, that just as spiritual communion can produce the spiritual effects of actual sacramental Communion, and just as an act of perfect contrition can produce the spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance (each in the absence of the pre-requisites for the sacrament itself) so too, desire for Baptism, coupled with the necessary pre-dispositions of Faith, Hope and Charity, can produce the spiritual effects of Baptism in the absence of water. So we do not maintain that water is not necessary for Baptism and we do not maintain that Baptism is not necessary for salvation: we simply maintain that Baptism in voto [in desire] is capable of producing all the internal effects of Baptism in re [real or actual Baptism]. And there is not the slightest contradiction between this and the Canon you quote. "In fact, the canon in question was particularly directed at the doctrine of Calvin that the word 'water' in chapter 3 of St John was purely a metaphor indicating the grace of the Holy Ghost."

That is the end of the quotation from an old correspondence (circa 1987) - one example of many (I have been debating this subject with Feeneyites since 1983). I have only succeeded in convincing one of the true Catholic position because the Feeney idea is a bit like Islam - it has its own built-in protection against conversion. It just feels so solid and Catholic to insist on believing that the Church just means, well, exactly what she says. Doesn't it?

But Feeney-ism doesn't take account of all that the Church has said that bears on the subject, and that is why no informed Catholic wishing to adhere to the mind of the Church can do other than reject it.

Well, XXX, it's over to you now. I do sincerely request you to pray for light during our discussions, and promise Our Blessed Lady that you are ready to make any sacrifice in order to remain faithful to Catholic doctrine, if she will only give you light to see and understand it. May your guardian angel guide you as you reflect. Yours in Domino, John Daly

End of cut and paste. I will now cut and paste the document which was an attachment to the original message to XXX:

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church. Only invincible ignorance can excuse from grave sin anyone who fails to do so. Those who are invincibly ignorant of the duty of joining the Church will not be held guilty by God of failing to do so. But they are not therefore to be considered automatically in the way of salvation. If they fail to observe the natural law engraved on their consciences, and the divine positive law insofar as it is known to them, they will certainly be lost.

Nor is fidelity to his conscience enough for the salvation of such a person. Salvation is a supernatural good which can be obtained only by living the supernatural life - it is never a reward for merely natural virtue. Now actual grace is freely distributed by God to all men, but sanctifying grace, the supernatural life, is found exclusively in the supernatural society founded by God. The state of grace exists, to be sure, in some persons who are not visibly united with the Church in her external communion, but only because they are, in fact, already within her in voto - by desire. For the state of grace, or supernatural life, is what salvation depends on. And if it were possible to possess supernatural life outside the Church, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church would be false.

Nor is this a mere matter of precept to which exceptions may exist. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. And whereas invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. Those who failed to clamber aboard Noah's Ark were all drowned in the Flood, irrespective of whether this failure was due to invincible ignorance or not. Does it follow that God will punish by deprival of salvation those who were guilty of no sin by their failure to join the Church? It does not. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the duty to enter the Church, but faithfully obeys the dictates of conscience, will receive the supernatural enlightenment necessary to enable him to make an act of supernatural faith. If he co-operates with actual grace by making this act, he can proceed to the act of hope and the act of charity, thereby acquiring the state of sanctifying grace - supernatural life. In this case he is united with the Catholic Church by desire (which remains partly implicit), for by faith he believes whatever God has revealed (even if he knows very little of what that revelation contains) and by charity he desires to accomplish the will of God (though he does not realise that this implies joining the Catholic Church.)

What is the nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church? There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, of course, a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, whereas one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith: (i) the existence of a single God, (ii) that God will reward the just and punish the wicked (iii) the triune nature of God and (iv) the Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation. (A minority of recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred. )

God will make known His revelation of the necessary articles to anyone who is faithful to conscience, so that the necessary means of salvation may not be wanting to him. The statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is, therefore, absolutely true and admits of no exception whatsoever. For the purposes of eligibility for salvation, the Church includes not only recognised Catholics, but also catechumens and all those who, being invincibly ignorant of the duty to join her, possess true supernatural faith, explicit as to the necessary articles, allowing them to be counted Catholics in voto - by desire.

Invincible ignorance is neither a sacrament nor a virtue: it cannot therefore sanctify or save. It simply excuses the breach of the law of which one is invincibly ignorant. The faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation is a supernatural virtue moving one to believe firmly all that God has revealed, and is explicit as to the essential articles listed above. It cannot be replaced by Protestant "faith" meaning the impious and unjustified conviction that one's sins are forgiven (Dz. 802), or by natural knowledge of God's existence, or by mere opinion as to supernatural truths; nor can it be a faith having no object - it is necessary to believe what God has in fact revealed. What is necessary for salvation by necessity of means admits of no substitute, excuse or exception. Ignorance thereof is always either sinful in itself or permitted by God in consequence of other sins against one's conscience. What is necessary by precept, but not by necessity of means, admits exceptions in the case of invincible ignorance. God may allow exceptions to positive law, but not to dogma.

Thus it is not in every case absolutely necessary for salvation to be within the visible communion of the Catholic Church, but it is absolutely necessary to share the Church's faith and to be united with her at least in voto.

Of those who die outside the visible communion of the Church, it is certain that the following are damned: 1. All those who manifestly lack supernatural faith; 2. All those who die in a state of manifest sin against the natural law known to all men, or to the revealed law of God insofar as they are aware of it; and 3. All those who are manifestly not invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church. Hence the Holy See has repeatedly condemned the practice of even conjecturing about the final destiny of such persons, as though it were a matter of doubt.

As to those who die outside the Church's visible communion, but after a life of apparent virtue, with the possibility of invincible ignorance of the Church and true supernatural faith, their salvation is certainly possible. However, it would be a mistake to presume that case to be a common one. For if, for such people, actual membership of the visible Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation, it remains the ordinary means of salvation, and the ordinary channel of those graces and helps to salvation which men commonly stand in need of. And it is not readily to be conceded that God bypasses the economy of salvation which He has established and promulgated. Nor are such people excused from the ordinary duties of prayer to obtain the grace of fidelity to God, perfect contrition to recover grace after grave sin, etc.


Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:18 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:40 pm
Posts: 86
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
"The theologians are unanimous."

Several theologians rejected the concept of Baptism of Desire.

_________________
Let us have great devotion towards the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary


Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi !

Rosarie stated
Quote:
Several theologians rejected the concept of Baptism of Desire.


Who?


Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 175
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Rosaire wrote:
"The theologians are unanimous."

Several theologians rejected the concept of Baptism of Desire.


Don't hold back Rosaire. Tell us who they are. Give us the references. I will personally give you 100 $ for every approved Catholic theologian subsequent to Saint Thomas Aquinas from whom you can quote an unambiguous and verifiable rejection of Baptism of Desire. Get in quickly while I still have something left in the bank!


Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:40 pm
Posts: 86
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
John Daly wrote:
theologian subsequent to Saint Thomas Aquinas


I meant Early Fathers.

_________________
Let us have great devotion towards the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary


Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Rosaire wrote:
I meant Early Fathers.


Yes, which is like writing, "The theologians are not unanimous regarding the Immaculate Conception." It's a way of confusing the issue by pretending that what was possibly once unclear is still unclear today. Past tense confounded with present tense. It's really a way of denying the authority of the Church and it is the open road to all heresies.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:51 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
Yes, which is like writing, "The theologians are not unanimous regarding the Immaculate Conception." It's a way of confusing the issue by pretending that what was possibly once unclear is still unclear today. Past tense confounded with present tense. It's really a way of denying the authority of the Church and it is the open road to all heresies.


Just to be clear and fair to them, I hear the Dimond brothers objecting that the analogy here is not precise, since while the theologians were not unanimous regarding the Immaculate Conception until after the Church cleared up all confusion by defining it, the question at hand does not go from imprecision to (defined) precision, but from apparent defined precision (wherein the popes held out no exceptions many, many times and only a couple of fathers hesitatingly speculated to the contrary [1]) until, after Aquinas, who revived Augustine's speculation, "extra ecclesia nulla salvus" became more and more confused as it was inflated and expanded until Pius XII had to warn it was becoming "a meaningless forumla". And then Vatican II, of course, inflated it to outright universalism.

It's a tiresome debate on an important subject, but while I agree with St. Thomas(2) on it, I do not see how it can be denied that what was intended to be exceptions (desire, blood, invincible ignorance, implicit desire etc) have been terribly abused, to the point where the Church lost its missionary zeal in this country, America, for instance, through a presumptuous expanding of "implicit desire" which soon enough morphed into outright universalism. And it was this abuse which prompted the reaction of Fr. Feeney (and perhaps also the Dimond brothers) even if these wound the string too tight.

[1] Sts. Augustine and Ambrose; St. Augustine admitted to struggling with the question, going back and forth in his mind (Jurgens, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, Vol 3:1630) while Ambrose's funeral speech for Valentinian some suggest (when not in the heat of polemics) is ambiguous. Preaching I think we would all agree should be oriented to baptism and winning the "return" of Protestants, not presuming on exceptions.

[2] If unbaptised infants end in Limbo, what shall we say of ripened sinners even if they attain to the exceptions?


Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:20 am
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
I have yet to see the Dimond brothers make a retraction when they are shown to be in error. For example, when I wrote to inform them that John Paul II could justify his use of a "papal" chair with an inverted cross as being the famous "Mamertine cross," I received no response and they continue to use it as an example of JPII's supposed Satanism. You see, I would not be too surprised if it were revealed that JPII was in fact a Satanist, I just despise deceptive arguments that attempt to bolster one's position when in actuality they discredit it. Other un-retracted errors include believing that JPII was THE Antichrist and of course baptism of desire and blood.


This is where many traditionalists are weakest. They seldom if ever can admit they are wrong or overreaching. The Dimond brothers make many such mistakes even in the kind of areas pointed out here. Their biggest and most culpable sin, in my view, is to be scorning and damning others at every turn---even those long and wise in the resistance---as not merely in error but as "bold-faced" heretics because these disagree with their novel opinions and / or overreaching. I don't believe the Dimonds are "double-agents" as Eliz suggested, but they are culpable in pride, I fear. We can pray for them more. If some of us can recover from mistakes, so can they. They have gifts as well as weaknesses. Their analysis of Vatican II, the New Mass, ecumenism, etc., is quite good.


Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:42 am

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:37 pm
Posts: 26
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Re: last Paxus post and earlier John Daly post

I feel a little out of place in this forum, like a child in a room full of professors (or theologians). I'm very impressed by all of you, and I'm really learning from you. Please correct or enlighten me when I go astray.

paxus wrote:
Quote:
I have yet to see the Dimond brothers make a retraction when they are shown to be in error. For example, when I wrote to inform them that John Paul II could justify his use of a "papal" chair with an inverted cross as being the famous "Mamertine cross," I received no response and they continue to use it as an example of JPII's supposed Satanism. You see, I would not be too surprised if it were revealed that JPII was in fact a Satanist, I just despise deceptive arguments that attempt to bolster one's position when in actuality they discredit it. Other un-retracted errors include believing that JPII was THE Antichrist and of course baptism of desire and blood.


This is where many traditionalists are weakest. They seldom if ever can admit they are wrong or overreaching. The Dimond brothers make many such mistakes even in the kind of areas pointed out here. Their biggest and most culpable sin, in my view, is to be scorning and damning others at every turn

The Dimond brothers are abominable. I recently saw an article one of them wrote directed against the "illogical heretic John Daly". Good grief! Do the people who follow them direct their own venom only against the Dimonds' so-called heretics, or do they also create new heretics of their own?

I've always been uncomfortable with traditionalist claims that seem "overreaching" to me. The problem is that I don't always know what's overreaching and what's really true (and worth taking note of).

John Daly wrote:
I am posting here an old letter which does not directly concern the Dimonds but comments on some of the same errors. It may prove useful to someone.
I have changed my correspondent's name to "XXX".

Dear XXX,
<skip text>
I realise that some careless writers about theology (especially vernacular writers whom I generally eschew anyhow) have made misleading statements about baptism. Some say, for instance, that there are three baptisms. Of course there are not: the New testament teaches formally that there is just one baptism as there is just one Lord and one Faith.


St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica Part III Question 66
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.


I don't know Latin, I've read only a little St. Thomas (long ago), and I don't know too much of what the Church has taught since St. Thomas. So you can take this for what it's worth!

Clearly there is ONE baptism, but in some sense are there three - one in fact, the other two by way of desire for the first? Are the recent theologians just rushing to speak of 3 baptisms without making St. Thomas' distinctions?
John Daly wrote:
There are a great many Catholic authorities I could quote in defence of this position, but I am going to pluck up my courage and take my stand on the one which you have already indicated to me that you are aware of and believe to be worthless. It is the following words of the Council of Trent: "This...translation [i.e. from the state of original sin into the state of grace 'of the adoption of sons' (Romans 8:15)] after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it..." (Denzinger 796)

As you well realise, the man in the street is liable to take this as implying unmistakably that the justification of the person still in original sin may be brought about either (a) by baptism, or (b) by the desire for baptism. Hence you informed me that: "...the decree does not state that: this transition [the justification of the sinner] CAN be effected WITH the water of regeneration or the desire for it. Rather, the decree does state that this transition...canNOT be effected withOUT the water of regeneration or the desire for it."

Now, XXX, there is no doubt that what you say is true, but is the distinction you make of the slightest relevance, or are the two phrases which you so carefully distinguish in fact exactly equivalent in meaning? I maintain they are interchangeable for all practical purposes and in the judgment of any man of balanced mind, familiar with the ordinary rules of the use of language, of logic and of ecclesiastical usage - and that no one would try to suggest that the words of the decree do not imply the words of your first proposition above unless he was carefully trying to avoid admitting something which he finds uncomfortable.

Imagine you went to buy a new car and you saw a sign advising potential purchasers that "cars may not be removed from the premises without payment in cash or by a recognised credit card." Having selected your Porsche you brightly present to the salesman your platinum American Express card. He accepts it, fills in the docket and returns it to you for signature. You sign and ask for the keys of the car. "Oh no," he replies, you can't have the car for a month. I have to get in another one to replace it first."

Naturally you are aggrieved. "But look at the sign," you say, "I can take my vehicle as soon as I have paid in cash or given you my credit card." "No, no, no," replies the car-salesman, "You must be logical. The sign says that you may NOT remove your purchase withOUT cash or credit. But it does NOT say that you MAY remove it WITH cash or credit. That would be a completely gratuitous conclusion. Go back to your classes in grammar and logic. I'll give you the keys to your auto when you can promise you have read the whole of the Material Logic of John of St Thomas in the original." :lol:

Wouldn't it be fair to call that salesman a con-man, XXX? And which are worse, XXX, theological con-men or automobile con-men? Because your argument is just as bogus as the car-salesman's. It is the same argument in fact. And it completely overlooks the fact that a list of conditions may equally well be presented in positive form or negative form. (E.g. "Driving test candidates cannot be presented unless they speak English or have a translator" is the same as "Driving test candidates must either speak English or have a translator.) To suggest that the negative form does not imply the positive corollary is to accuse whoever made the original statement of playing with words in order to deceive. And the dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council is not out to mislead; it is out to teach.


To quickly fool the gullible Peter Dimond compared the Council of Trent words to:
P. Dimond wrote:
There cannot be a Wedding without a Bride or a Groom.” Does this mean that you can have a Wedding with a Groom and not a Bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the Wedding. One could give hundreds of other examples. Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!”

People already know beforehand that a wedding must have BOTH a bride and groom, so without thinking about it they might understand the statement to mean "There cannot be a wedding without a bride and a groom". Having done this, their positive form would be "There can be a wedding with a bride and a groom".

If a boy heard his mom say "We can't leave without your jacket or your mittens", he would be in trouble if he came out without both of them. The mother (speaking carelessly) and the boy would both know what she meant. They knew beforehand that on a cold day BOTH are needed: jacket AND mittens. .

Similarly since Dimond had made up his mind beforehand that both water AND desire were needed for justification, therefore for him the Council of Trent statement must have meant that, even if it used the word OR.

===
However, in the example "you may NOT remove your purchase without cash OR credit" we know beforehand that (in common practice) only ONE is needed: cash OR credit. So in this case, the word OR behaves itself, and everyone understands it means OR not AND.

Now, someone like Dimond might say, doesn't this at least mean that the word "OR" MIGHT mean "AND"? In other words isn't the Council of Trent ambiguous? (That is, the Council of Trent could be interpreted either Dimond's way (with AND) or our way (with OR), depending on its understanding of past Church teaching).

But the Council of Trent translation is not ambiguous, OR always means OR, and "There cannot be a wedding without a bride OR groom" doesn't mean "There cannot be a wedding without a bride AND groom".

Dimond changes "OR" to "AND". But the presence of a double-negative doesn't allow you to change OR to AND without changing any of the surrounding words!

It's easier for me to consider the logic of these statements in this way:

There cannot be a X without a A or a B --- means:
There can be a X if a A is present, or if a B is present

but

There cannot be a X without a A and a B --- means
There can be a a X only if A and B are both present.

Plug in wedding, bride, and groom above, and you get:
Using OR: There can be a wedding if the bride is present, or if the groom is present
Using AND: There can be a wedding only if the bride and the groom are both present

As we knew in the first place:

Dimond should have used AND in his bride and groom example.
The Council of Trent translation makes sense. Plugging it in to my awkward form above: Justification can take place if the water of regeneration is present, or if the desire for it is present.


Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:43 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
To answer the above question: of course not.

However, when we are dealing with those people who, unfortunately, are taken in by the Dimonds, or who when reading their screeds give them more credence than they are worth, we MUST not use the term "three baptisms" as this term is very confusing to those who haven't thought it through, or who are not familiar with the teachings of such as St. Alphonsus, or St. Thomas on this subject.

In point of fact, there is only one Sacrament of baptism.

In the case of "baptism" of blood, and "baptism" of desire, they are called "baptism" (notice the quotes) because of what they DO, not because of what they ARE. Perhaps use of the word "baptism" is not exactly correct, especially in our modern age, but I cannot think of another single word that could replace it easily. The term could be replaced with a statement, but not, in my opinion, by any single word.

Only Baptism of Water IS Baptism, the sacrament. The others accomplish much of what the sacrament accomplishes, i.e., salvation, and therefore they are "like" it.

I suppose another way of looking at this situation is to realize that when describing the sacrament, the word Baptism is a noun, whereas when used in conjunction with the words, "of blood" or "of desire" it is another part of speech, maybe an adverb. :?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Griffin, GA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Here is simple logic: What do the words of the Creed say?
"I Believe in One Baptism!"
Now which Baptism might that be?

_________________
"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."


Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:22 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Linda wrote:
Here is simple logic: What do the words of the Creed say?
"I Believe in One Baptism!"
Now which Baptism might that be?


There is no problem if one is prepared to submit to the Catholic Church and accept her teachings as she understands them. The problem arises from neo-Protestant personal interpretation of ecclesiastical texts.

St. Thomas is entirely clear, as usual. And the Church instructs her teachers to adopt his doctrine and to teach it to her children. "The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold." Code of Canon Law, 1366, 2.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 475
New post St. Thomas Aquinas on Baptism of Desire and Blood
Dear all,

In many of these discussions, we often hear of St Thomas' teaching being discussed, but I often wonder how many have actually read his words, and "sit at the feet" of the Angelic Doctor and learn from him. I have posted below the text from the Summa explaining Baptism of Desire and Blood. (S.T. III, Q. 66, Art. 11, 12) I hope this helps all on this forum. Taken from: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#11

Yours in JMJ,

Mike


Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

I answer that, As stated above (62, 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.

Article 12. Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?

Objection 1. It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.

Objection 2. Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Corinthians 13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.

Objection 3. Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (11), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.

On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."

I answer that, As stated above (11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Reply to Objection 1. A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.

Reply to Objection 2. The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.

Reply to Objection 3. The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:04 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
RE: St. Thomas. Absolutely beautiful, Mike, absolutely beautiful :D

Thank you!

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:07 am
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Geocentrism, Baptism of Desire and the Dimond Brothers

Quote:
The argument that baptism of desire must be true because St. Alphonsus (Doctor of the Church) thought that baptism of desire is de fide has been totally refuted. St. Robert Bellarmine thought that geocentrism is de fide and he was contradicted by numerous popes.


Classic Dimond brothers non sequitur above with bombastic hyperbole elsewhere; they say not only "refuted" but "obliterated," completely unaware and unhindered by the fact that we are talking apples and oranges here, the former ('baptism' of desire) pertaining to theology and the latter (geocentrism) pertaining to a mere scienctific theory. Unfortunately these guys are so invested in defending their supposed correctness (frightful pride) they will allow no facts to get in the way.

The popes censured no doctors of the Faith, ever, for holding the teaching the Dimond Brothers condemn but instead elevated and canonized many of them. But the Dimond brothers spend all their time looking for false analogies, and strained and specious arguments to get around the obvious.

The theologians at the Council of Trent knew well what Trent taught on the subject but the Dimond Brothers are not phased and interpret that Council against them and theological contemporaries at the time.

St. Pius X's catechism also, etc., etc. That a true teaching can be abused is hardly proof of its not being Catholic teaching.

I do believe their intentions are good, and BoD has been terribly abused, but they are an example of how terrible pride can put one in grave danger spiritually as witness their calling so many traditional priests and bishops "bold heretics" for agreeing with the doctors and popes and not them.

They need to chill on the subject for a few years....and accept the fact that the Church clarified the matter at least fro St. Augustine on through her approved venerable theologians and accept that their (Dimond Bros) books will need adjusting....and consider that they can be 80% right, but the remaining 20% of error can put them at terrible risk, not on account of merely being materially wrong, but for the audacious crime of damning other priests and bishops in public who are in fact modern day confessors of the Faith on this (esp) and other issues vis a vis the Conciliar Church.

The OT was clear: Adulterers should be stoned to death. Yet Our Lord found mitigating circumstances in pointing to and applying the "weightier matters of the law" and sometimes excepted the guilty. Sabbath breakers also, even if Pharisees could not see the reasons. So it is with the exceptions who are "baptized" by desire. We can be certain (even if the Dimond Bothers are not) that God is Just and knows the spirit of the Law as well as the Letter of the Law.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:49 am
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
I really should re-emphasize for balance that the Dimond Brothers, like Fr. Feeney, are right to show how terribly these teachings, BoD, implicit desire, invinvible ignorance, etc., have been abused. This is seldom mentioned in polemics against them. Fr. Feeney and people like the Dimonds are very right to correct these abuses which tend to universalism. Unfortunately the latter do not see it as abuses, and so they make a living in effect corroding the traditionalist response to Vatican II.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:08 am

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 359
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Speaking of Baptism of Desire and Father Feeney...

I recently read one of Father Feeney's books in which he tells little anecdotes about his life, each chapter containing a lesson of course, in which Father speaks of the definite possibility of the salvation of a non-Catholic through a baptism of desire. It is not a theological treatise but the way in which Father brings up the issue, he clearly demonstrates a belief that even those souls not formally members of the Catholic Church could possibly find salvation.

I don't know very much about Father Feeney, but I have to say that either Father changed his views or his followers, after his death, perverted his memory to such a degree that denial of any degree of "baptism of desire" came to be known as "Feeneyism". I have often wondered what the truth of the matter is but have not had the time nor the resources from which to learn what the truth may be.

It is, I think, abundantly clear that the idea of a "baptism of desire" has been so perverted by most modern Churchmen to the point that virtually every human being who has ever lived and ever will live will be saved. It seems that this idea, especially in America, was growing in the minds of Catholic bishops long before the Council and was the foundation of the problem of "Americanism" and "Religious Liberty". But I no longer equate this complete denial of the possibility of salvation through some sort of mysterious "baptism of desire" (sort of like "perfect contrition") with Father Feeney himself.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:00 pm
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
I don't know very much about Father Feeney, but I have to say that either Father changed his views or his followers, after his death, perverted his memory...


Yes, he changed his views after seeing Catholic students at Harvard go in Catholic and come out liberals and universalists. Prior to that he was known as a very fine writer, poet and was much in demand as a speaker.

I think his concern was truly motivated by apostolic zeal after observing that liberals were taking Baptism of Desire and the rest into regions never intended (and thus deflating the missionary imperative). Unfortunately he tightened the string too tight. But he was a poet not a theologian. The reason this issue continues to plague is because the issue, in itself, is real, though neither the Dimonds or Fr. Feeney knew how to address it but went overboard in zeal.

The way to address it, in my opinion, is to point out that what God does in secret and by way of exception is no business of ours; and we must never presume to make anything but the need for baptism the object of our teaching and preaching, never presuming on desire and the like.

Water Baptism is the only way one can be morally certain of reaching shore by using the only means we know will get us there. All other hopes are like ignoring the Ship which has come to save us for leaky rafts, etc. Even the famous Vatican Protocol itself (122/49) which stopped Fr. Feeney's Boston ministry for being too stringent in interpretation had to admit in its very text that in Pius XII's Encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, it is clear that those who

Quote:
"'are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire'...are in a condition 'in which they cannot be sure of their salvation' since 'they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church'" (AAS, loc. cit., 342, emphasis mine)


Fr. Feeney was a humble, apostolic, man, though a mistaken man in some details who went too far. But he fought the right cause against liberalism. The Dimond brothers do not seem to possess his grander qualities and they urge that less knowledgeable people only support them financially as practically the last two Catholic teachers on earth (this is a dangerous subtext of theirs, tucked in tiny letters between the lines). Their private interpretation and pride makes their fall from grace almost a sure thing one fears, unless God helps them. They likely chase as many away from traditional Catholicism as they attract with their books and tapes which are of interest at first but which grow stale and scary quick on account of the way they seek to destroy traditional Catholicism with their cocky "we are the last true catholics, the rest are bold heretics" mantra, "so keep the money coming in and don't by any means $$$ support those others," under pain---it is suggested---of mortal sin. Bad stuff there.


Last edited by paxus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:59 pm
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Typo alert:

Should read: "The way to address it, in my opinion, is to point out that what God does in secret and by way of exception..."


Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:02 pm

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 359
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
paxus wrote:
Quote:
I don't know very much about Father Feeney, but I have to say that either Father changed his views or his followers, after his death, perverted his memory...


Yes, he changed his views after seeing Catholic students at Harvard go in Catholic and come out liberals and universalists. Prior to that he was known as a very fine writer, poet and was much in demand as a speaker...


The book I read was written in the 1930s. I don't have a Father Feeney timeline, so I can't say if this was before or after the Harvard issue. But I don't understand how seeing Catholic students losing their faith at Harvard--or anywhere, for that matter--would have anything to do with "baptism of desire." Why would Father Feeney change his belief in baptism of desire because he witnesses apostasy? That doesn't make sense.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:08 pm
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
Why would Father Feeney change his belief in baptism of desire because he witnesses apostasy? That doesn't make sense.


He rightly saw that such apostasy together with confused ideas about BoD deflated the missionary impulse quite completely, and he was seeking as Catholics always did to convert men and women to the Church. Cardinal Cushing of Boston was telling Catholics to just get along and leave the Protestants alone; leave them to in their invincible ignorance.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:40 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi!


Quote:
Fr. Feeney was a humble, apostolic, man, though a mistaken man in some details who went too far.


He ignored every warning from his order, plus ignored being excommunicated by name by the Holy Office, he continued to offer the sacraments and Holy Mass, and preach, all of which under the circumstances were sins on his part.


I do not see anything humble about his actions.......

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:54 am
Posts: 68
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
In my opinion, the Dimonds, Fr. Feeney, and other clergy suffer from a chronic sense of superiority and lack of supervision and accountability. Much of it is simple ambition, I think. They often recieve counsel from sycophants, and the succumb to numerous temptations of pride and arrogance. Each little group its own special island, and the odd little celebrity status of a well-spoken clergy.

They cannot admit making mistakes, and I believe money is a crucial element for many of these traditional communities. Once in the spotlight, their reputation becomes necessary to maintain. They don't have any Bishop to give them the correction they need. But they all seem to need money, and while they are busy looking up ancient writings to support their political posistion, maybe they should be doing so after brutal, supervised mortification.

Big mistakes are made, and go unpunished and then there are precious few apologies, let alone any serious attempt at making direct ammends. The Dimonds aren't the only ones making it up as they go along. They are just more talented at media productions than some, and started off younger than some of the same temperment.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:51 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
I believe money is a crucial element for many of these traditional communities. Once in the spotlight, their reputation becomes necessary to maintain.


It is a grave danger. Conservatives do it too as witness Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture.org seeking 25K this quarter (!) for running a website! His fund raising used to be only pleading for about 50 thousand a year!

Then there are the Carribean Cruises, causal clothes with drinks after bible study on deck! Etc. etc.

Many call thelmselves to "ministry" and seek to be paid for it handsomely.

Feeney resisted what he thought was compromise from the Cushing manipulated-Curia (He thought Pius XII was on his side who was kept out of it); but Feeney IMHO was very different from the Dimonds, in kind.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:30 pm
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
I do not see anything humble about his [Fr. Feeney's] actions


I understand, and I won't defend everything, much less his errors. But the Catholic liberals in the 40's had opened up BoD, implicit desire, invincible ignorance so wide you could drive a truck called apostasy through it.

The real scandal may have been Pius XII's neglecting to crack down on this Americanist-Cushing presumption, relativism and indifferentism, since it lead in a straight line directly to Vatican II's universalism.

If the Dimonds would get humble, listen to the Fathers, they could address this open wound without making the great mistake of turning on the Fathers. Water Baptism, not desire, must ever be the object of our preaching and teaching. God alone knows how many make it on the leaky raft of desire and whether or not they only get as far as Limbo anyway.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:11 pm

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 516
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
elizcarroll wrote:
In my opinion, the Dimonds, Fr. Feeney, and other clergy suffer from a chronic sense of superiority and lack of supervision and accountability. Much of it is simple ambition, I think. They often recieve counsel from sycophants, and the succumb to numerous temptations of pride and arrogance. Each little group its own special island, and the odd little celebrity status of a well-spoken clergy.

They cannot admit making mistakes, and I believe money is a crucial element for many of these traditional communities. Once in the spotlight, their reputation becomes necessary to maintain. They don't have any Bishop to give them the correction they need. But they all seem to need money, and while they are busy looking up ancient writings to support their political posistion, maybe they should be doing so after brutal, supervised mortification.

Big mistakes are made, and go unpunished and then there are precious few apologies, let alone any serious attempt at making direct ammends. The Dimonds aren't the only ones making it up as they go along. They are just more talented at media productions than some, and started off younger than some of the same temperment.


This is a most unfortunate post, in my opinion. I don't know exactly what you are referring to here...but it is accusatory.

Who's fault is it that there is a "lack of supervision and accountability"?

Why is there no "Bishop to give them the correction they need"?

Are you complaining about the crisis in the Church...or those mired in the crisis? ... which would be all of us. You appear so willing to cast the first stone. Do you not think we are all struggling...even the clergy?

Robert


Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi

Quote:
The real scandal may have been Pius XII's neglecting to crack down on this Americanist-Cushing presumption, relativism and indifferentism, since it lead in a straight line directly to Vatican II's universalism


That is a claim oft repeated in Feeneyite circles... I have never seen anything substantial to back it up. By substantial I mean , nothing from outside the pro-Feeney circles accusations. I had a uncle who graduated from Boston College ( 1950). And during this timeframe, he never witnessed anything, of the kind, that Fr. Feeney and his followers described and accused Cardinal Cushing and the Boston College Jesuit staff of teaching.

The theology classes he attended, taught the correct application of BOD/BOB and EENS.

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:51 pm
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
That is a claim oft repeated in Feeneyite circles... I have never seen anything substantial to back it up.


I'm not of the Feeneyite circle. But Vatican II didn't spring out of the blue overnight. Think about it.

It was in Harvard Square that Feeney was preaching and teaching, as well. You may disagree with him, sure, but they are not all liars, Vince.

The Kennedy brothers were hitting on the girls while Father Feeney was urging them to get their lives right. That his teaching was apostolic (aimed at conversion) and Cushing's was ecumenical is a plain fact. Don't let the polemics distort objectivity. I know Boston fairly well.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:07 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi !


Quote:
I'm not of the Feeneyite circle. But Vatican II didn't spring out of the blue overnight. Think about it.


Vatican II did not spring from Boston College either :) :)

Granted the Masons were at work for decades prior. Recall that Pope Pius XI in 1923 asked the Curia if a council should be called to complete Vatican 1.. he was told, it would be much to risky given the undercurrents emanating within the episcopacy , and would most likely result in a unmitigated disaster for the Church.


Are we to blame Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius Xth for this?

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:42 pm
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
Was Leo XIII to blame...



Ah well, the strained analogies aside, I believe we're saying the same thing at the end of the day. However as my, or your, ignorance may be invincible relative to this matter, we probably shouldn't bother our heads overmuch... :lol:


Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:09 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
TKGS wrote:
But I don't understand how seeing Catholic students losing their faith at Harvard--or anywhere, for that matter--would have anything to do with "baptism of desire." Why would Father Feeney change his belief in baptism of desire because he witnesses apostasy? That doesn't make sense.


You'd need to see how the Jesuits in Theological Studies and America were presenting the doctrine, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Monsignor Fenton was complaining about this long before Fr. Feeney, and nobody celebrated Humani generis more than Fenton. He was overjoyed. Indeed, I have an inchoate article brewing in my head which would lay out some of the facts and the timeline on this and suggest that it was Fenton who was responsible for Feeney becoming interested in the issue. It was a real issue. Fenton made a statement in the mid-forties in the AER to the effect that ecclesiology was the crucial battleground of our era. What is doubly fascinating about that is that it is still true this very day. The core problem with Vatican II, the New Mass, and the new Code, is that it constitutes a new religion and a new church. The differences between traditional Catholics, and the difference between them and the victims in the Novus Ordo, can be understood as varying reactions to the ecclesiological problem. Fenton implicitly prophesied this.

I would not compare Fr. Feeney with any of his modern-day followers - at least the public ones.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:29 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
paxus wrote:
Water Baptism, not desire, must ever be the object of our preaching and teaching. God alone knows how many make it on the leaky raft of desire and whether or not they only get as far as Limbo anyway.


Part of the Feeneyite mistake regarding Baptism of Desire is this notion that it is a practical proposal, rather than a theoretical examination of Providence. God loves variety, and if He saves via varying means then that is not at all surprising. The theologian's task is to explore the truth, not to lay down rules for his Creator to follow.

Water baptism - i.e. "baptism" - should be the answer to, "How would I enter the Church?" The "three baptisms" should be part of the answer to "How did God save St. Emerentiana and other souls who were not baptised with water, but who were still saved?"

Perhaps some of the Feeneyite heat would dissipate if they realised that we don't propose to include a rite for administering Baptism of Desire or Blood in the Small Ritual for use by parish priests. :)

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
elizcarroll wrote:
In my opinion, the Dimonds, Fr. Feeney, and other clergy suffer from a chronic sense of superiority and lack of supervision and accountability. Much of it is simple ambition, I think. They often recieve counsel from sycophants, and the succumb to numerous temptations of pride and arrogance. Each little group its own special island, and the odd little celebrity status of a well-spoken clergy.


Dear Eliz,

I agree with Robert.

I think what you mean is something like this. "I wonder if some clerics suffer more keenly than others from a lack of accountability..."

Robert is right - we're all struggling, and it behoves us not to criticise - or at least, to try to do so with sympathy. I know that this is hard when you have been through the wringer yourself, but I don't think it is optional.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:45 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
Indeed, I have an inchoate article brewing in my head which would lay out some of the facts and the timeline on this and suggest that it was Fenton who was responsible for Feeney becoming interested in the issue.


I hope you do this John. It would be a real service, and on a connection I was not aware of. I have Fenton's 1958 The Catholic Church and Salvation but that's about it. I never saw AER (are these volumes obtainable somewhere?)


Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:33 pm
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
John Lane wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps some of the Feeneyite heat would dissipate if they realised that we don't propose to include a rite for administering Baptism of Desire or Blood in the Small Ritual for use by parish priests


Aye! If they could only see that a defense of Fr. Feeney should not and need not include his exaggerations and errors when he was substantially correct on a critically important matter, it would be something. But many of his disciples, I think, made him as though verbally inspired when such an approach only distracts from credibility and truth.

To have attacked the fathers for so long for holding to views which were never even censured has been the great mistake of many of his disciples; and these very fathers were the first to insist that water baptism alone should be the object of Catholic preaching and teaching---anything else, desire, implicit desire, invincible ignorance, belongs to God's just secrets which are of no practical concern to the missions or their urgency. Moreover as Pius XII said they are not as certain to make it to Shore, even though remaining true teaching. Our task is to seek conversions through the waters of salvation per Jn 3:5 (not through desire which belongs to God's secret judgment) and one need hardly throw St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, et al., overboard to join in proclaiming what he had right! The error of many "Feeneyites" is imprudence in this matter.

The Dimond Bothers and others should make a declaration that precisely in the interests of of extra ecclesiam nulla salus they will no longer seek to do anything but show how the fathers held to the strictest interpretation of "the dogma" and that their venerable teachings (regarding desire and the rest) in no wise compromise the urgency of Catholic missions which the Vatican II religion has betrayed and made a mockery of. Moreover only water baptism is the "sure" means of salvation when we cooperate with its graces---- whereas the efficacy of any exceptional "desire" is known only to God and may not lead beyond Limbo to the Beatific Vision if one continues to sin after this efficacious "desire".


Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:49 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi

Quote:
The error of many "Feeneyites" is imprudence in this matter


It seems the error of Feeneyites is not following correct doctrine, by ignoring correct principles used in order to understand correct doctrine, i.e. they ignore the approved teachers, and only accept solemn pronouncements of the Magisterium


Irony: The Novus Ordo allows their "rigorist" position regarding Baptism and Justification as one of many different positions, the other of course being universal salvation. What a pan-Church the novus ordo is.....

John- I would like to see the outline regarding Fr. Fenton and Fr. Feeney. If memory serves Fr. Feeneys " order" the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, where teaching their strange position by 1947... Fr. Feeneys " Bread of Life" was not published in book form until 1952.

I have asked the SBC if they knew the exact date or at least year, Fr. Feeney was teaching his doctrine outlined in Ch. 7, but none I talked too that were alive at that time remember the date or year.

from Cp 7 Bread of Life;

Q. What. does "Baptism of Desire" mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can "Baptism of Desire" save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could "Baptism of Desire" save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of "Baptism of Desire," and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.

Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is "Baptism of Desire," as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ? End quotes

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:10 pm
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Aye, Vince, doctrinal errors where they exist are always imprudent. But errors often attach to important truths like barnacles. In the Feeney-Dimond case the serious error(s) was / is in going to excess; it was / is saying the Church's doctors interpreted "the dogma" wrong when in fact it was / is the liberals who were wrong about both the fathers and "the dogma".


Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:55 pm

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi !

Quote:
In the Feeney-Dimond case the serious error(s) was / is in going to excess; it was / is saying the Church's doctors interpreted "the dogma" wrong when in fact it was / is the liberals who were wrong about both the fathers and "the dogma".


Going to excess? Fr. Feeney circa 1952 was in the same boat as the " liberals", both ignoring Church Authority in Doctrine, with Fr. Feeney even going farther, ignoring the consequences of his excommunication by name, by the Holy Office.

In addition, Fr. Feeney's teaching to his " flock" ; " Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy" Bread of Life Ch.7

Regulates Doctors of the Church; St. Thomas Aquinas, St Alphonsus di Ligouri, St. Robert Bellarmine to the category of " heretics". Makes one shudder...

Jump and stomp all you want about those " liberals".....I see much of the same ( if not worst) in the person of Fr. Feeney.

In Xto,
Vincent


Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:58 pm
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Rx: Glass of water for Mr. Granger.

Vince, is it me or do you have a tendency to get all incoherent when one Leonard Feeney is brought up? Worse than the liberals, eh?

I think not, but that he is guilty of excess and error yea.


Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:11 am

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi

Quote:
I think not, but that he is guilty of excess and error yea


:) So, teaching that Sainted Doctors of the Church are in fact heretics is just an excess? And he taught this to a generation of his followers......

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:34 am
Profile
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
So, teaching that Sainted Docotrs of the Church are in fact heretics is just an excess?


Not "just" an excess, but an excess, aye, Vince, an error, several in fact, born of zeal upon seeing one of the most central dogmas of our faith abused beyond belief by liberals in our Masonic Land of the "Free" until---Lo!---we are smack dab in Vatican II's universalism and drinking libations with animist tribes. Cardinal Cushing, Feeney's nemesis, was a prototype of latitudinarianism ...and he also helped defeat the traditionalists at the Council as well, but that is another story.

So yes, Fr. Feeney went too far, but Cushing went farther without being condemned and it's a fine kettle of soup we're in.


Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:33 am

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Christi !

Quote:
So yes, Fr. Feeney went too far, but Cushing went farther without being condemned and it's a fine kettle of soup we're in.


My point- 2 wrongs never make a right. It would also be interesting to read anything " heretical" that Cardinal Cushing taught. Frankly, I have never seen anything, only the accusations. One doubts the Holy Office would have ignored the liberal errors, said office under Pope Pius XII was rather active in condemning leftist errors.

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:19 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
paxus wrote:
I never saw AER (are these volumes obtainable somewhere?)


I think Brian Poulliot and John Parrot at Preserving Christian Publications might have a set. You could also try Loome Theological Booksellers. Or the old faithful, http://www.abebooks.com and http://www.bookfinder.com (here is a complete set, in Germany of all places, for around $5k: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDet ... =977839853 )

Please don't ask me about books. I start searching, and then I get tempted... :)

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:21 am
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Quote:
One doubts the Holy Office would have ignored the liberal errors, said office under Pope Pius XII was rather active in condemning leftist errors.


It was Cushing's way to be father of all, Catholic, Protestant and Jew. He was the prototype of Vat 2 in many ways, even if in retrospect he seems ancient and crusty. It's how he ran his schools in those heady days of Hollywood's Fr. O'Malley, Fr. Fitzgibbon, Going My Way? We Boston Catholics (he would suggest always) are the MOST patriotic Americans there are, totally dedicated to this new "freedom" and "separation of Church and State"... liberty!!!!

He need not write books, it was enough to encourage people and schools not to proselytize and then send the kids to Harvard (what a badge of honor for Boston Catholics!) Pius XII condemned error without naming names (he failed in that respect and so these were easily rehabilitated by "Good" Pope John his successor).

But Feeney, the good poet and poor theologian saw what was really happening. He went out and met the enemy in the road :twisted: and attacked IT. Unfortunately he shot the sheriff too by mistake, so the story is all very messy. But it was not for failing to try to do the right thing. As I say, Feeney went too far, but Cushing went even farther astray (unnoticed due to the zeitgeist) and here we are in the soup of ...universalism, the New Age!.


Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:43 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4083
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Well, that might all be true, but the only way to know would be to sift through the facts and put them in order, then consider them. Which is what Vince was suggesting, if I'm not mistaken.

_________________
In Christ our King,
John Lane.


Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:45 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
John Lane wrote:

Quote:
Well, that might all be true, but the only way to know would be to sift through the facts and put them in order, then consider them. Which is what Vince was suggesting, if I'm not mistaken.


I've done that to my satisfaction. Vince will have to do it to his own satisfaction, or come to different conclusions to which he seems predisposed before study. You cited Fenton already. But I've studied the facts from almost all angles and please no one on the issue. Would that time permitted me to chronicle everything at a forum such as this, but that's impossible. A few minutes a day is about enough in such forums, no? Vince prefers to suggest a Feeneyite (which I am not) is not likely to see Cushing correctly, objectively, not even after the latter's eulogies for the Kennedy's allegedly emblematic Catholic Faith (as it was cynically framed in those days).

It's a no win issue generally. People are so emotional on both sides, but the truth as I have suggested is not at those extremes. So, having come to this pass where I am not likely to please either the "Feeneyites" or people like Vince, I rest content. My only objective here in in this thread was to urge fairness to the Dimond brothers, despite their errors, and context. So with that, on this thread I say: Finis.


Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:46 pm

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
paxus wrote:

It's a no win issue generally. People are so emotional on both sides, but the truth as I have suggested is not at those extremes. So, having come to this pass where I am not likely to please either the "Feeneyites" or people like Vince, I rest content. My only objective here in in this thread was to urge fairness to the Dimond brothers, despite their errors, and context. So with that, on this thread I say: Finis.


Paxus,

You may be interested in the following forum conversation (follow link), especially the comments by the author James Larrabee. It was a very enlightening thread; again, pay special attention to the comments by Mr. James Larrabee.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 729
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: Are the writings of Michael and Peter Dimond reliable?
Pax Chrsiti


Dear Teresa,


And what do you think this adds to the subject, which was already droped by Paxus?

Paxus - if you do read the thread, also concentrate on Mike's posting in contrast to James Larrabee's. I backed out of the topic when the position was put forward that Fr. Feeney's excommunication was " deemed" not really a excommunication.

In Xto,
Vincent


Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:13 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.