It finally happened. Brother Peter Dimond and I debated an issue concerning Baptism of Desire. It was a lot of fun. I love it when I’m called a “total liar” and “Heretic” and that I’m “possessed by the Devil” over and over again for defending my Catholic Faith and good bishops and priests who do the same.
The reason for the debate to happen so soon was due to an email exchange which began with me writing to Bro. Peter, “Quite frankly, I thought your debates were good. I wish you could have capitalized on Sungenis on a few points, but that’s okay. Hindsight is 20/20. I actually like you and Sungenis.”
Bro. Peter replied Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
To your comment, Sungenis’ position was clearly exposed and refuted. I don’t need your pointers on that. Also, it’s simply demonic for you to actually give credit to Sungenis for bringing you out of the Novus Ordo Church, when he defends the New Mass, Vatican II, etc.
Would you even say that Sungenis, who obstinately defends Vatican II and the antipopes as Catholic, is a heretic?
I responded Thu, Jun 27, 2013 11:18 PM
Dear Bro. Peter,
I didn’t give you any pointers. I said that I wish you “could have capitalized on Sungenis on a few points.” That’s not a pointer. A pointer would have been to tell you how you could have done it. I didn’t do that. I simply told you what I would have like to have seen. You don’t have to agree with me.
I do give credit to Sungenis because before anyone else, he showed me the first problems with Rome such as the Assisi Events and rightly criticized them. This woke me up. However, Sungenis doesn’t follow through with the implications with what he criticizes. In personal emails, I saw that he couldn’t answer certain things which led me to believe that things were more serious. Then I looked deeper and that’s when I discovered you, Cekada, Lane, etc. To call it demonic for me to give credit to Sungenis misses the point.
I like Sungenis for the good that he does, as I like you for the good that you do. I don’t like the fact that Sungenis defends Vat2 and the antipopes as Catholic. I believe his soul is in great peril if he doesn’t own up to the truth, but I’m not God. Only God judges his interior heart, but on the objective level he’s terribly wrong, and yes a heretic if he really believes Vat2.
I like you for the great work in exposing Rome. I don’t like how you judge the interior hearts and intentions of people. I don’t like how you speak to others like the comment you made on my blog. I also don’t like how you misrepresent and reject BOD/BOB. I believe your soul is in great peril. That’s why I’m going to debate you. For the sake of your soul and those who believe like you on this point.
I can’t wait. Please let me know when you’re ready.
Bro. Peter came back Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:42:25 -0400 (EDT)
Notice how you misrepresent what I said. I didn’t say you gave me any pointers. I said I don’t need your pointers. Your response is thus a misrepresentation of what I said.
Second, you have no problem with the many lies that other posters on your site spread about us, but when we respond you have a problem with it. That’s hypocrisy.
You say my soul is in peril. Well, I tell you with certainty that your soul is on the road to Hell. I will let you know as we get closer to the first debate.
I replied Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:17 AM
You implied that I gave you pointers or else you wouldn’t have said it. Thus, I didn’t misrepresent you.
Secondly, I didn’t say anything about the other posters, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a problem with them. You don’t know if I let others know personally how I feel about what they say about you. To say,”hypocrisy” implies that you have made a judgment about me before getting all the whole facts. You jump to conclusions and like I said, you judge intentions, hearts, and things only God knows. Your email proves me right, thank you very much.
Bro. Peter replied Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
No, you are wrong. Do you want to have the first debate right now? If you stick to the topic, rather than throw in other objections, we can have the first debate right now.
My reply Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:45 AM
What are you talking about, topic and other objections? You made statements and you have been shown to be wrong on very simple points. Can you not admit that you have rushed to judgment?
What debate are you wanting right now?
Bro. Peter Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
Right now, we can debate the specific topic of whether your priests believe that souls can be saved in false religions. That will be the topic; but if you stray from it in this debate, that will be inadmissible.
I wrote Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:57 AM
You just now, about a minute ago, lied about me on my blog saying that I believe souls can be saved in false religions. I’ve made it abundantly clear to youthat no one can be saved in false religions.
Will you take it back what you said on my blog and admit that you have misrepresented me?
Bro. Peter responded Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:59:06 -0400 (EDT)
I’ll prove that’s what you believe in the debate. Let’s debate.
I wrote Fri, Jun 28, 2013 01:00 AM
Do you want to go first or me?
I gave him my phone number and he called me at 1:22 AM
(really just a phone discussion as I would have with a friend…hardly a real debate)
If the above email exchange was any indication how this debate was going to go, you knew it wasn’t going to be pretty. However, in my arrogance and vanity (the sin I struggle with), I wanted to prove that I’m willing to go the distance even though I work 15 hour days with very little sleep, not to mention that I’m a father of 3. In my mind, I told myself to be humble and patient as I can regardless how often he twists my words or attacks me with liar, demonic this or that, etc. Hopefully, people can hear in my voice that I’m not a bully or anything else that is thought of me. I’m a person who will talk, listen, and be kind when the other party is not.
First of all, the recording has Br. Peter booming loud and strong and I sound like I’m deep in a cave. This is great advantage to him for debate purposes. He’s overpowering what I’m saying at times.
As you will hear, Bro. Peter had no intention of listening or understanding what I’m saying. I must defend Bp McKenna and other priests for the statements they have made. For instance, It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’
I have to say that supernatural life is heretical as it is stated if it means life of grace. Therefore, I have to admit to Bro. Peter that it’s heretical if that is what is meant.
Is that what is meant in the statement? I don’t think so. I would give the benefit of the doubt that Fr. Fahey and Bp. McKenna mean a life well intentioned rather than a life of grace. Of course, Bro. Peter will not hear any of it. I’m trying to be sincere in the debate, but Bro. Peter thought that I was just lying and being dishonest about it.
NOTICE THAT HE DOESN’T SAY “LIFE OF GRACE” but rather “SUPERNATURAL LIFE WHICH GOD WISHES TO SEE IN EVERY SOUL.” Bro. Peter translates the statement to mean Life a Grace. At 15:15 into the debate, Bro. Peter actually LIES when he says that Fr. Denis says, “A Jew who rejects Christ can have a state of grace.” THAT’S NOT WHAT Fr. Denis stated, but rather “supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul.” BRO. PETER LIED AND MISLEAD ME to think that’s what Bp. McKenna fully agrees with. He called me the liar, yet it was Bro. Peter who did the lying. That lie by Bro. Peter bugged me all night, because I never saw a quote by Fr. Denis or McKenna that stated what Bro. Peter stated. Now I know the truth about what was really said. Bro. Peter is the liar.
I did admit that I would admit defeat in the debate “if” they really said and mean it the way Bro. Peter thinks. But it really doesn’t matter what any of us hold, because Bro. Peter doesn’t believe that God can save a person at death in a mystery that we don’t understand. No matter what is meant, our position is heretical because Bro. Peter holds that BOD is heretical. Keep this in mind when you listen.
The bottom line of the debate is this: Anyone who at death God wishes to be saved will enlighten that person with the true Faith and repentance. I repeated it several times to make sure that point was understood no matter how bad Bro. Peter would attempt to twist my position. Baptism of desire is a type of conversion at the moment of death, but Bro. Peter said conversion at death is not the issue because we all believe that people who convert at death will be saved. The problem is the conversion that Bp. McKenna, etc. and myself hold is a conversion that Bro. Peter rejects is possible. IT’S THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE.
Regardless if McKenna and the others use phrases that could mislead, they understand BOD as I just explained.
I was asked if the invincibly ignorant can be saved. I’ve explained over and over that invincible ignorance doesn’t save. Those who are invincibly ignorant must be given grace at death of repentance and infusion of the true Faith.
So if I say the invincible ignorant can be saved, Bro. Peter could say that I believe that you don’t need to know Christ to be saved. I was careful with my words. It’s all a matter of perspective. I can say the invincible ignorant can be saved and not be saved and both statements be true. The former in the sense that the can be saved in a future tense by given the grace to know better, and the latter in the sense they can’t be saved at death. However, I kept it to the point.
The whole debate is about perspective, but Bro. Peter only wants me to say what he wants me to say to win a debate. He simply wouldn’t hear that BOD is a type of conversion at death.
We spoke about judging in the internal forum. We can say that someone is not in grace if that person is not baptized which is part of the internal forum, but we can’t judge the intentions of one’s heart. Bro. Peter tried hard to make me look like I’m contradicting myself with the example of Christopher Hitchens.
I’ll let you listen and be the judge whether I was really lying and contradicting myself. If so, please let me know where specifically.
Bro. Peter Dimond said he would continue on with another debate with me soon. I suggest the next debate to be on the words of the popes themselves. Bro. Peter calls me a heretic for believing that man can be saved without water baptism. I’ll like to turn the debate around and let him answer the numerous teachings from popes that teach precisely to what I hold to which he rejects. Are these pope not heretics in his eyes? It’s the same debate but in reverse.
We’ll see if Bro. Peter Dimond can use the same logic against me as he does with the popes that say or imply what I said over and over in the first debate.
Click below to hear the debate: