Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July, 2013

Robert Siscoe sent the following story to me:

The last moments for Mrs. Cohen arrived on 13 December 1855. Father Hermann was preaching Advent in Lyons at the time and he announced this sad news to his friend in these terms:”God has struck a terrible blow to my heart. My poor mother is dead … and I remain in incertitude! However we have so much prayed that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. …”We can easily imagine the pain of Father Hermann in learning of the death of his mother. He had so much prayed and so much had prayers said for her conversion, and she came to appear before the tribunal of God without having received holy Baptism! …” I also have a mother,” would he write one day, “I have left her to follow Jesus Christ, she no longer calls me her ‘good son’. Already her hair is silvered, already her brow is furrowed, and I am afraid to see her die. Oh! no I would not like to see her die before loving Jesus Christ, and already for many years I await for my mother that which Monica awaited for Augustine…”God seemed to have despised all his prayers and rejected his loving and legitimate desires. His faith and his love were put through a harsh trial. Nevertheless, if his sorrow was deep, his hope in the infinite goodness of God would not allow itself to be struck down. …Saint Jean Marie Vianney Cure’ of Ars short time later, he confided to the Cure’ of Ars his disquiet about the death of his poor mother who died without the grace of Baptism. “Hope!” replied the man of God, “hope; you will receive one day, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception a letter that will bring you great consolation.”Six years waiting.

These words were almost forgotten, when, on the 8th December 1861, six years after the death of his mother, a Father of the Company of Jesus handed to Father Hermann the following letter.(The person who wrote this letter died in the odour of sanctity; she was well known in the religious and ascetical world by her written works on the Eucharist.)The letter read:On the 18th October, after Holy Communion, I found myself in one of those moments of intimate union with Our Lord, where he made me so feel his presence in the sacrament of His love that Faith seemed no longer necessary to believe him there.

After a short time, He had me hear His voice and He wanted to give me some explanations relative to a conversation that I had had the night before.I remember that, in that conversation, one of my friends had manifested her surprise that Our Lord, who has promised to accord everything to prayer, had however remained deaf to those of Reverend Father Hermann who had so many times addressed Him to obtain the conversion of his mother; her surprise went almost as far as discontentment, and I had had difficulty in having her understand that we must adore the justice of God and not to seek to penetrate its secrets.I dared to ask of my Jesus how it was that He, who was goodness itself, had been able to resist the prayers of Father Hermann, and not grant the conversion of his mother. 

This was His (Our Lord’s) response: Why does Anna always want to sound the secrets of my justice and why does she seek to penetrate mysteries that she cannot comprehend?

Tell her that I do not owe my grace to anyone, that I give it to whom I please and that in acting in this way I do not cease to be just, and justice itself.But that she may know that, rather than not keep the promises that I have made to prayer, I will upset heaven and earth, and that every prayer that has my glory and the salvation of souls for object is always heard when it is clothed in the necessary qualities. He added: “And to prove to you this truth, I willingly make known that which passed at the moment of the death of the mother of Father Hermann”. My Jesus then enlightened me with a ray of His divine light and had me understand or rather to see in Him that which I want to try to relate. At the moment where the mother of Father Hermann was on the point of rendering her last breath; at the moment that she seemed deprived of awareness, almost without life; Mary, our good Mother, presented Herself before Her Divine Son, and prostrate at His feet, She said to Him: 

“Pardon and mercy, o my Son! for this soul who is going to perish. Yet another instant and she will be lost, lost for eternity. I beseech you, do for the mother of my servant Hermann, that which you would like to be done for your own, if She was in her place and if you were in his. The soul of his mother is his most precious good; he has consecrated her to me a thousand times; he has consecrated her to the tenderness and solicitude of my heart. Could I suffer her to perish? No, no, this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance, as the price of your blood and of my sufferings at the foot of your Cross.” Hardly had the sacred suppliant ceased speaking, when a strong, powerful grace, came forth from the source of all graces, from the adorable Heart of our Jesus, and came to enlighten the soul of the poor dying Jewess; instantly triumphing over her stubbornness and resistances.This soul immediately turned herself with loving confidence towards Him whose mercy had persued her as far as the arms of death and said to Him: “O Jesus, God of the Christians, God whom my son adores, I believe, I hope in Thee, have pity on me.” In this cry, heard by God alone and which came from the intimate depths of the heart of the dying woman, were enclosed the sincere sorrow for her obstination and for her sins, the desire of baptism, the express will to receive it and to live according to the rules and precepts of our holy religion, if she had been able to return to life.This leap of faith and hope in Jesus was the last sentiment of that soul; it was made at the moment when she brought towards the throne of the divine mercy. Breaking away the weak bonds which held her to her mortal casing, she fell at the feet of Him who had been her Saviour (a moment) before being her Judge.” After having showed me all these things, Our Lord added:”Make this known to Father Hermann; it is a consolation that I wish to accord to his long sorrows, so that he will bless, and have blessed everywhere, the goodness of the heart of my Mother and Her power over mine.”

Totally unknown to Reverend Father Hermann, the poor invalid who has just now penned these lines is happy to think that she has perhaps spread a little consolation and balm on the still bleeding wound of the heart of this son and priest. She dares to ask the alms of his fervent prayers, and she likes to believe that he will not refuse to one, who, even though unknown to him, is united to him by the sacred bonds of the same faith and of the same hopes. …”What appears to add great authority to this letter, is that it had been announced six years in advance by the venerable Cure of Ars.

End of translation –

(pp. 126 – 129, Vie du R.P. Hermann, en religion Augustine-Marie du T.S. Sacrament, Carme Dechausse, par M. l’Abbe Charles Sylvain, Paris, 1883.
From the French life of Rev. Father Hermann, in religion Augustin-Marie of the Most Holy Sacrament, Discalced Carmelite, by Fr. Canon Charles Sylvain, Paris 1883.)

Publised with the approbation of and recommendation of His Grandeur Mgr. Gay, Bishop of D’Anthedon, Auxiliary of His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitier, 4 Dec. 1880 and of His Grace Mgr. de la Bouillerie, the Archbishop of Perga, Coadjutor of Bordeaux, 23 July 1881 of His Lordship Mgr. Adolphe-Louis Perraud, Bishop of Autun and Member of the French Academy, 8 March, 1882 and of the Most Reverend Father Luc of St. John of the Cross, Father General of the Discalced Carmelites, 4 May, 1880) – See more at: http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html#sthash.wH0Y7xjs.OeWRnA1u.dpuf

(pp. 126 – 129, Vie du R.P. Hermann, en religion Augustine-Marie du T.S. Sacrament, Carme Dechausse, par M. l’Abbe Charles Sylvain, Paris, 1883.
From the French life of Rev. Father Hermann, in religion Augustin-Marie of the Most Holy Sacrament, Discalced Carmelite, by Fr. Canon Charles Sylvain, Paris 1883.)Publised with the approbation of and recommendation of His Grandeur Mgr. Gay, Bishop of D’Anthedon, Auxiliary of His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitier, 4 Dec. 1880
and of His Grace Mgr. de la Bouillerie, the Archbishop of Perga, Coadjutor of Bordeaux, 23 July 1881
of His Lordship Mgr. Adolphe-Louis Perraud, Bishop of Autun and Member of the French Academy, 8 March, 1882
and of the Most Reverend Father Luc of St. John of the Cross, Father General of the Discalced Carmelites, 4 May, 1880) – See more at: http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html#sthash.wH0Y7xjs.OeWRnA1u.dpuf
(pp. 126 – 129, Vie du R.P. Hermann, en religion Augustine-Marie du T.S. Sacrament, Carme Dechausse, par M. l’Abbe Charles Sylvain, Paris, 1883.
From the French life of Rev. Father Hermann, in religion Augustin-Marie of the Most Holy Sacrament, Discalced Carmelite, by Fr. Canon Charles Sylvain, Paris 1883.)Publised with the approbation of and recommendation of His Grandeur Mgr. Gay, Bishop of D’Anthedon, Auxiliary of His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitier, 4 Dec. 1880
and of His Grace Mgr. de la Bouillerie, the Archbishop of Perga, Coadjutor of Bordeaux, 23 July 1881
of His Lordship Mgr. Adolphe-Louis Perraud, Bishop of Autun and Member of the French Academy, 8 March, 1882
and of the Most Reverend Father Luc of St. John of the Cross, Father General of the Discalced Carmelites, 4 May, 1880) – See more at: http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html#sthash.wH0Y7xjs.OeWRnA1u.dpuf
(pp. 126 – 129, Vie du R.P. Hermann, en religion Augustine-Marie du T.S. Sacrament, Carme Dechausse, par M. l’Abbe Charles Sylvain, Paris, 1883.
From the French life of Rev. Father Hermann, in religion Augustin-Marie of the Most Holy Sacrament, Discalced Carmelite, by Fr. Canon Charles Sylvain, Paris 1883.)Publised with the approbation of and recommendation of His Grandeur Mgr. Gay, Bishop of D’Anthedon, Auxiliary of His Eminence Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitier, 4 Dec. 1880
and of His Grace Mgr. de la Bouillerie, the Archbishop of Perga, Coadjutor of Bordeaux, 23 July 1881
of His Lordship Mgr. Adolphe-Louis Perraud, Bishop of Autun and Member of the French Academy, 8 March, 1882
and of the Most Reverend Father Luc of St. John of the Cross, Father General of the Discalced Carmelites, 4 May, 1880) – See more at: http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html#sthash.wH0Y7xjs.OeWRnA1u.dpuf

See more at: http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html#sthash.wH0Y7xjs.dpuf

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The Roman Catechism VS Dimond of MHFM

The Roman Catechism states that baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…” (P. 178)

On the next page, the Catechism states that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)

So that nothing is left out, I will break down the entire section on the Roman Catechism in Dimond’s book Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, pp. 135-139.

Dimond writes: “The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A.McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common Englishtranslation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains thefollowing interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome,about the Catechism’s authority.Catechism of the Council of Trent Fifteenth printing, TAN Books,Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally beenissued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching toindividuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the RomanCatechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine,and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is notinfallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and whatis de fide.”367

What Dimond omits is the fact Dr. Hagan also stated, At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical.”

This is important because Catholics are not free to question this level of authority.

Pope Pius XII taught, “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), D 2313.

Contrary to Pope Pius XII, Dimond is already laying the groundwork why he has the right to question, label as erroneous, and not give assent to this level of authority of the Church.

Twice, I asked Dimond point blank if the pertinent phrases in the Roman Catechism are heretical and he refused to answer the question.

In the next few sections, Dimond attempts to show where and why he thinks the Roman Catechism is in conflict with the Council of Trent and other papal documents. His purpose is to demonstrate that if the Catechism is erroneous on other points of doctrine, he can logically argue against those pertinent phrases above as contrary to the absolute necessity of Baptism under all conditions. His argument, then, will be that the Roman Catechism is outright heretical through implication. Unfortunately for Dimond, Pope Clement XIII declared on June 14, 1761 in In Dominico Argo that the Roman Catechism “is far removed from every danger of error.” Dimond, like typical liberals, picks and chooses what he’ll believe.

Dimond continues…

“The fact that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small errors can be detected within its text. For example:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”368

Here the Catechism teaches that outside the Church none can attain grace. This is not true. Predisposing or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church sothat they can turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace isgranted.”369 Thus, what we have here is an error in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra).370 Nevertheless, Godallowed the Catechism to err in this manner because it is not infallible in everythingit teaches.”

Dimond omits the context of the Catechism that implied sanctifying grace. Dimond is going out of his way in attempt to find an error that’s not really there. He needs to find that error to demonstrate that the Catechism is faulty which he thinks gives him the right to question those paragraphs that clearly teach Baptism of Desire.

Notice also that Pope Clement XI didn’t specify what grace he was speaking about either. He didn’t say “actual”, “predisposing or prevenient” grace. Dimond would have to conclude that Pope Clement XI erred too, since outside the Church no sanctifying grace is granted. 

Thus far, Dimond is the only one in any real error, not the Roman Catechism, nor Pope Clement XI. 

Dimond continues…

“Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the socalled “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism.

Dimond sounds very much like the Protestant who says the Bible has no mention of Purgatory. However, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explained nicely just as the Bible explains Purgatory without actually mentioning the words.

To call the Catechism phrase “ambiguous” is genuinely dishonest. There’s absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever.

The Catechism says baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…”  

This statement clearly implies that there is another means of salvation besides Baptism for those above the age of reason. Then the Catechism concludes what it is:

The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Viola, Baptism of Desire!

Even Fr. Feeney didn’t reject this teaching. He erroneously concluded that there must be another permanent place for such people besides Heaven and Hell. You can find his teaching in his book “The Bread of Life” and magazine “From the Housetops.”

The Roman Catechism borrowed its statement on infants from Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

The infallible council implied that there’s another remedy other than Baptism for those who have attained the age of reason. Thus, the Roman Catechism was not teaching anything new. Yet, the same Catechism quotes four times John 3:5.

Dimond must necessarily conclude that the Roman Catechism is contradicting itself.

Also, Dimond knows the teaching of Pope Pius VI on ambiguous teachings when the pope condemned the Synod of Pistoia in his Bull “Auctorem fidei,” August 28, 1794:

“Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to catholic truth is camouflaged.”

Therefore, Dimond must render the Roman Catechism heretical based on his assertion that it’s ambiguous which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism.”

Regardless, Dimond is lying because it’s not a mere appearance the Catechism is teaching Baptism of Desire. It clearly and unambiguously teaches it. So much, in fact, that Canons 1239.2 and 737 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law are based off this teaching found in the Roman Catechism.

Continuing…

“But even in this paragraph we find errors. For instance, the passage says that “should any unforeseenaccident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination toreceive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”

There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible”to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes,even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”371

God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema bythe Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for aman who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what youcan do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”372

Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible document could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.”

Dimond is really grasping for straws at this point.

Trent’s statement is speaking about, “a man who is justified” obeying the commandments of God. It’s addressing those who would argue that, “the just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified, they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: “I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward” [Ps. 118:112], and of Moses the Apostle says, that he “looked to the reward” [Heb. 11:26].” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 11)

For the sake of the argument, let’s presume that the phrase applied to the sacrament of Baptism. Since Christ cannot command impossibilities, if the Sacrament of Baptism is made impossible, then Christ’s command to be baptized by water wouldn’t apply, thus faith, desire, and contrition suffices.

Trent’s statement wouldn’t be contradicted at all by Baptism of Desire. Rather, it would support it.

According to Dimond’s argument, since Trent placed under anathema what he thinks the Catechism teaches, he must necessarily conclude that the Roman Catechism is heretical, and the authors, editors, and promulgators are anathematized!

Dimond continues…

“Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively.”

So let’s get this straight. Dimond believes that the Catechism is heretical. Dimond is also implying heretical books which contain formal heresy, if taken as a whole teaches accurately and effectively the Catholic Faith, it would be an excellent tool for instructing the faithful. This is outrageous!

The Council of Trent warned against such nonsense.

Continuing…

“But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makesstatement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament ofBaptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.”

Now Dimond must conclude that the Catechism is contradicting itself. So not only is it heretical, it’s contradictory, but that’s okay with Dimond, because taken as a whole this heretical and contradictory book is an excellent tool for the Faith.

“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among theSacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divineand admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark thatall are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is thesignification of all the same.

“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. Theuniversal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior hasdeclared in these words: Unless a man be born again of waterand the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God(Jn. 3:5).”373

This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism.”

Dimond misunderstands the nuance. Necessity of means verses necessity of precept. Go back to part 1 of these articles.

“It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.”

Baptism of Desire doesn’t imply that John 3:5 is to be understood figuratively. Again, the Catechism quotes John 3:5 four times, and then teaches Baptism of Desire.

“Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity ofBaptism, pp. 176177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAWOF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD,EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated toGod through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christiansor infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction.Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of theGospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the HolyGhost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”374

This clearly means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!”

What is the law of Baptism as established by Our Lord that extends to all? What are the conditions? What are the nuances? How does the Church teach and explain it? This is what Dimond ignores. He rejects the Roman Catechism’s explanation and must hold that the Catechism is contradicting itself.

“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into thekingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansingit by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptismmay be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in theword.”375

The Catechism of Trent also teaches that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be deferred.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in themysteries of faith.”376

The customary delay in baptizing adults that we see in history was for the instruction and the testing of the catechumens. This delay was not because it was believed that adults could be saved without baptism, as proven already in the section on Pope St. Siricius.”

Below is the letter by Pope St. Siricius to Himerius (385).

“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.” (Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J. and Fr. Josef Neuner, S.J., The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

The above quote by Pope Siricius doesn’t deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire or refute through implication that it is impossible to be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Persons in necessity desiring water Baptism who die without it may very well be lost, because Baptism of Desire is not accomplished by merely desiring it.

There’s always the fear that those who die without Baptism, may be lost because perfect contrition, or some other requirement that God wants in the person, may be absent. Baptism of desire is something God does to the person.

Pope Siricius says delaying such infants or men “may lead to the ruin of our souls.” In other words, it would be a sin to delay them.

The second part of the quotation reiterates the first part. Perfect contrition may not be present with their faith, and Baptism is their only help to bring them to salvation since perfect contrition is not required with the sacraments.

Dimond must assume that the Roman Catechism is contradicting itself, because three paragraphs before the Catechism states, “In Case of Necessity Adults May be Baptized at Once” it gives the initial phrase, “should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness?”

The doctrine of Baptism of Desire requires repentance of sins, or perfect contrition, faith, and desire. The Sacrament of Baptism doesn’t require perfect contrition.

Continuing…

“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: ‘Holy writers are unanimous insaying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gaveHis Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to besaved.’377.”

Baptism can’t be rejected. That’s a given. Baptism of Desire is not a doctrine that rejects the fact that Baptism is obligatory.

“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all,was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to allfor salvation.”378

Notice that the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all.”

Dimond can’t understand very simple concepts.

Water is within the reach of all for drinking, cleaning, washing, and for baptizing. That doesn’t mean that everyone can always get a drink, clean or wash, or in this case, get baptized. The whole point of the pertinent phrase, should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters…” is to explain precisely the opposite of Dimond’s assertion.

The fact that Dimond would use this argument is astounding!

“Also notice that the Catechism declares that the sacrament is necessary for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism.”

Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation. All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Again, the sacrament is necessary for all for salvation under ordinary conditions and circumstances. The Roman Catechism gives a case of an extraordinary circumstance where the sacrament is not necessary for salvation. The only theory contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church is Dimond’s rejection of Baptism of Desire which is taught over and over again by Christ’s Catholic Church through the Roman Catechism and the Code of Law.

“Moreover, the Catechism also teaches that Christians are distinguished from nonChristians by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects areexemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, andthe Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess thefaith.”379

Those who assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.”

Since the Catechism also teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters,” which falls under the rubric “baptism of desire,” Dimond must conclude that the Catechism contradicts itself.

However, we do distinguish Christians from non-Christians by Baptism, but not Baptism alone. Christians are also distinguished from those who do not profess the faith. Both unbaptized and those who don’t hold the faith aren’t considered Christians while they’re still living. Baptism of Desire and Blood brings one into the Fold at death. At that point, they would be considered saints. We have saints from Baptism of Blood.

“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all,was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to allfor salvation.”

Dimond quotes again the same line from the Catechism implying that since water is in reach of all, it excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all” in the last part of his book to justify his assertions.We’ve seen how this may be the silliest argument of all. Why anyone would even bother listening to Dimond after using such a ridiculous argument is beyond me.

Dimond wouldn’t have gone to all this trouble to show us what he thinks are errors in the Catechism unless his point is to let us know that he believes the Catechism is heretical on those two pertinent phrases.

It’s true that the Roman Catechism didn’t possess the chrism of infallibility when it was written. However, the universal and ordinary teaching of the Church, which is infallible, has guaranteed that the Roman Catechism is the standard and norm of the Catholic Faith, which necessarily means that it contains no formal heresy.

JOHN A. MCHUGH, O. P. and CHARLES J. CALLAN, O. P. wrote (excerpts and emphasizes mine):

“The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals…it was issued by the express command of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all….that the Roman Pontiffs offered this work to pastors as a norm of Catholic teaching and discipline so that there might be uniformity and harmony in the instructions of all…Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter of September 8, 1899, to the Bishops and clergy of France,…wrote: “This work is remarkable at once for the richness and exactness of its doctrine, and for the elegance of its style; it is a precious summary of all theology, both dogmatic and moral. He who understands it well, will have always at his service those aids by which a priest is enabled to preach with fruit, to acquit himself worthily of the important ministry of the confessional and of the direction of souls, and will be in a position to refute the objections of unbelievers.”

Likewise Pius X in his Encyclical Acerbo nimis of April 15, 1905, declared that adults, no less than children, need religious instruction, especially in these days. And hence he prescribed that pastors and all who have care of souls should give catechetical instruction to the faithful in simple language, and in a way suited to the capacity of their hearers, and that for this purpose they should use the Catechism of the Council of Trent…

Besides the Supreme Pontiffs who have extolled and recommended the Catechism, so many Councils have enjoined its use that it would be impossible here to enumerate them all. Within a few years after its first appearance great numbers of provincial and diocesan synods had already made its use obligatory. Of these the Preface to the Paris edition of 1893 mentions eighteen held before the year 1595. In five different Councils convened at Milan St. Charles Borromeo ordered that the Catechism should be studied in seminaries, discussed in the conferences of the clergy, and explained by pastors to their people on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments. In short, synods repeatedly prescribed that the clergy should make such frequent use of the Catechism as not only to be thoroughly familiar with its contents, but almost have it by heart.”

Pope St. Pius X went on to say in his Decree “Quem singulari” of the Congregation on the Sacraments in Aug 8, 1910:

“For first confession and for first communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. But the child will be obliged afterwards to learn gradually the whole catechism in accord with his intelligence.” (D 2138)

Two paragraphs later Pope St. Pius X tell us what catechism should be learned in whole: the“Roman Catechism.” (D 140)

Based off the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius X promulgated his own catechism which teaches Baptism of Desire. The letter of promulgation by Pope St. Pius X can be read here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/documents/hf_px_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html

The Most Rev. Bishop George Hay and Rev. Michael Müller C.SS.R., two of the greatest teachers of the Catholic religion in the last 200 hundred plus years, both taught Baptism of Desire in their respected catechisms, which were based off the Roman Catechism.

Because the Roman Catechism is not an infallible document doesn’t imply that it can be formally heretical. The Catholic Church has infallibly taught that the Roman Catechism is the standard by which the Faith is to be believed and understood.

Dimond holds that the Catholic Church has promulgated an extremely heretical and contradictory book for Catholic instruction of priests and faithful for 500 years!

NOT A SINGLE CHURCH AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER HAS EVER CONDEMNED, CRITICIZED OR CORRECTED THE CATECHISM IN ALL THAT TIME until 2 brothers born in the 1970’s who made themselves monks called into question and pointed out that it’s heretical because of their PERSONAL and NOVEL INTERPRETATION of the canons of Trent and the erroneous doctrine that God can’t save a soul apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions.

THE DIMONDS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE MARTIN LUTHER’S OF TODAY.

I planned on doing a whole series of these articles, but after going through the buffoonery of Dimond’s book, I’ve changed my mind. I have better things to do with my life than wasting my time answering point by point of sheer idiocy.

Read Full Post »

In the comment section, I wrote:

The Dimonds are jealous because they’re not the only ones out there promoting sedevacantism. They want to be THE go-to-guys, and they alone want to be right. They’ve been proven to be wrong on a central issue and can’t stand it.

They read my book which clearly debunks all their arguments and then some, and therefore, want to use me in one of their exhibitions (debates) so that I would lose all credibility. I wanted a gentleman’s bout in the ring, but they refused. They would only have a mud wrestling contest knowing where all the obstacles lie against me.

Also, notice very carefully that they’ve tried to censor me in every respect. They removed an old comment of mine from their website. They refused to use my full name and website in the first debate, because they know that people will find my writings that thoroughly expose their lies and misrepresentations on baptism of desire, and whatever else.

They’re blinded with pride and refuse to admit error on anything. They rashly judge everyone’s hearts and motives, they judge the Church’s laws and catechisms, papal encyclicals, decrees, etc. and they even claim through implication to know me better than I know myself on salvation.

They think they are gods. In fact, they’re antichrists of the highest level giving traditional Catholicism a very bad name. How many Catholics have refused to hear traditional Catholic teaching because of the nastiness of the Dimond’s? I personally know 3.

I should have taken the advice and teaching of all the Church fathers and had no communication with such non-Christians.

From here on out, I will block all future comments from them and any of their constituency.

 After I posted this comment, Dimond commented again, which I sent to spam. I’ve interjected my own comments in bold into his following comment that I decided to post here.

Steve,

I recognize that you are frustrated, after having been exposed in our previous debate and after having backed out of the second debate because you are afraid that you will be exposed and refuted again.

SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond continues this line of argumentation after I’ve clearly explained my position where I stood in the debate and why I won’t debate him again. He never refuted anything in the debate. You won’t be able to put on paper where I was refuted. If anybody thinks he can, please send it to me. I’m not frustrated at all, but Dimond is. Now he has to go to work and try to discredit me, and defend himself with long writings. It’s going to take a lot time and he knows that he must do it because his pride won’t allow him to admit any error. It’s funny really, how little nobody me is eating him up so bad. How long did it take him to write this comment to me? How much time does he spend thinking about me and how to destroy me? All his efforts against me has launched my website with tons of hits and personal emails; the very thing he didn’t want. I’m sure he won’t stop either, because he’s on the hot seat.

With regard to the previously agreed to second debate, you now say: ‘I WON’T DO IT!’

SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond omits the rest of my comment that explains what I won’t do…

The only way to debate him in his controlled debates and appear to win, would be to stoop to his level and use his own tactics of nastiness, interruptions, ad hominums, etc.

I WON’T DO IT! IT’S CHILDISH.

CALL ME A COWARD IF YOU LIKE, BUT I LAID OUT SEVERAL REASONABLE WAYS TO DEBATE HIM AND HE REFUSED THEM ALL.

NOW THAT I’VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT THE LAST DAY OR SO, I REALIZE WE SHOULDN’T ENGAGE WITH SUCH NASTY, ARROGANT, AND PRIDEFUL PEOPLE IN ANY FORM, MUCH LESS A PUBLIC DEBATE.

THEY SHOULD BE IGNORED AND REJECTED.

I WAS WRONG FOR EVER HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM.

I’m giving you a final chance to change your mind. If we agree in advance to do it on some evening, perhaps this week, will you do it on the topic and with the parameters we discussed? We can go two minutes back and forth, with mature flexibility for questions here and there.

SPERAY REPLIES: Now Dimond is changing his position. He wouldn’t have it this way originally. Why the change now AFTER he’s read that I won’t engage in any communication with him? He knows that I won’t change my mind, and he can tell everybody that he gave me the fair chance and I coward out. Quite frankly, I would like to play his dirty game, but I’m taking the advice of several trustworthy people to ignore him totally.

If you don’t e-mail me back within the next day or two, with a clear statement that you will do the telephone debate, I will move forward with the conclusion that you have firmly and finally decided not to do it. But recognize this: this is your last chance to ever have a debate with me.

SPERAY REPLIES: I have firmly and finally decided never to have any communication with any person who acts so childishly and uncharitably as Dimond.

The only reason I’ve dedicated this attention to you is because you were a potential debate opponent with whom I could examine in detail various aspects of these issues in order to illustrate the true Catholic position and further refute and expose false positions which oppose it (e.g., BOD, etc.). Our previous debate demonstrated quite clearly that you are a heretic and a liar, who accepts the heresy that souls can be saved in any religion, who lies constantly, and who can hardly answer a simple question without contradicting himself.

SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond holds that any person who accepts BOD is a heretic, anyone who defends it is a liar. I clearly explained that absolutely no one can be saved in any religion, but only in the Catholic religion. It’s precisely this garbage from Dimond that I refuse to have any communication with him. He’s the liar and any debate with him would only be waste of time, because he doesn’t listen.

Originally you also had no problem doing a series of debates with me. It was only after you were completely refuted in the first debate that your sentiment changed.

SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve proven this statement to be a lie. I was willing to go the distance, until he became unreasonable, made lying statements that I was shown to believe “that that souls can be saved in any religion” and his unbelievably rude phone call at 1 am.

Since you were already exposed in one debate, another debate with you is obviously not necessary.

SPERAY REPLIES: So why continue if it’s not necessary? Like I said, he wants to use his childish debate tactics where my side get glossed over with his many ad hominums.

So, this is your last chance. If you do not respond with the indication that you will do it, I will proceed without you and there will never be another debate between us. I will either cover the points of refutation on the specified debate topic in a video, audio or article, or I will completely refute your position as if I were having the debate, despite your failure to appear.

SPERAY REPLIES: And, of course, I will reply to each of his lies on paper or in a video myself.

With regard to your writings, which, in your delusion, you consider good, recognize this: if we had a written debate you would be refuted just as clearly as you were in the telephone debate, and that would be obvious to all good-willed people; but it’s a complete waste of my time when I can cover the issues and refute you in one or two hours in a telephone debate.

SPERAY REPLIES: If this were true, Dimond would have them in his book, but they aren’t there.

For instance, prior to our telephone debate on your heretical priests, we had already proven, in writing, that the aforementioned priests do in fact believe souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions. You, on the other hand, claimed, in writing, that they do not believe that. Your position, expressed in writing, was a joke. You were simply too blind to realize it.

SPERAY REPLIES: What’s a joke is Dimond’s explanation and failure to apply certain principles. Dimond is simply too blind with pride to realize it.

Our position, expressed in writing, was true, sound and convincing to any honest person.

SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond calls anyone who disagrees with him a dishonest person. So his repeated assertion that “any honest person” or “a person of goodwill” will see his side is moot. He only accepts those who believes as he does. Everybody else is dishonest or bad willed.

In our telephone debate, we saw whose position, which had been expressed in writing, was true and held up. It was ours. The same would be true on every aspect of disagreement we have expressed on these matters in writing.

SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond’s has quite a high opinion of himself. He’s never wrong about anything. He thinks that he’s infallible!

Your writing is filled with blatant errors, omissions, outrageous lies, and false arguments. I could literally write a book proving it. Your positions, and the objections for BOD, have already been crushed in writing. You are just too blind and dishonest to see it, and that fact would be quite obvious if we had another telephone debate.

SPERAY REPLIES: I will show, as I’ve already begun to do with a series of writings, that Dimond’s position is filled with blatant errors, many omissions, outrageous lies, and false arguments.

For example, just as I wrote about 50 pages refuting every page of an article by John Salza, or a long section on all of Fr. Laisney’s lies and false arguments, and many similar articles, I could do a similar article on your blog posts and book. I could expose in detail every one of your false arguments, lies, omissions, distortions, etc.

Here are just a few of the blatant lies in your writing (I could spend time covering many other errors and dissecting your false argumentation at length, if I wanted to). I will probably mention these in an audio on our site, in case you attempt to hide these facts on your blog.

On pages 17 and 45 of your book, you use the false translation ‘except through’ instead of ‘without’ with regard to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. You repeatedly used this blatantly false, and grammatically indefensible, translation of ‘sine’ (which means ‘without’, not ‘except through’) in order to give a false impression well after you knew it was a false translation. You used it despite knowing that it’s false. That’s a mortal sin and a deliberate attempt to falsify a papal document.

SPERAY REPLIES: I used the translation found in Denzinger. However, I used the “without” translation in canon 4 immediately before the decree in ch. 4. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE ARGUMENT! I even explained why Dimond’s argument using “without” doesn’t work at all. I didn’t need to give a false impression. Dimond is the one who gave the false impression that the canon and decree mean something besides how the Church has officially recognized it.

In your book you cite St. John Chrysostom, as if he’s teaching baptism of blood as a substitute for water baptism, when he’s referring to the martyrdom of an already baptized priest named Lucian. If you would have studied our writing on that issue, you would have learned that.

SPERAY REPLIES: Here’s the quote by St. John Chrysostom: “Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood.” He’s clearly teaching Baptism of Blood, for he says, “just as those who are baptized by water.”  

Your writing contains many other lies and false statements on ‘baptism of blood’, which I will not spend time covering here. It’s also interesting that you hold the repeatedly anathematized heresy that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.

SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve address this point here: KO Argument in Defense of Baptism of Blood and Desire

You repeatedly write things such as the following, which are, of course, blatant lies:

“Every pope and saint is against them [on BOD]” – completely false mortally sinful lie.

SPERAY REPLIES: It’s true generally speaking. Can anyone point out a pope that has rejected the concept of Baptism of desire especially after Trent?

“…They [popes] have taught it [BOD] over and over in encyclicals…” – false mortally sinful lie

SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Innocent II taught it once. Pope Innocent III taught it once. Pope St. Pius V taught it with his Catechism, Pope Pius IX taught it twice. Pope St. Pius X taught it with his Catechism and the Roman Catechism. Pope Benedict XV taught it in the law. Dimond is doing the lying.

These are just a few of the lies in your writing. I have not bothered to expand upon the many other pages of your false argumentation, distortions, errors, failure to address key points and quotes, etc. There are literally hundreds of such things in your writing.

SPERAY REPLIES: So far Dimond hasn’t shown one error yet, unless you include Denzinger’s mistranslation which doesn’t affect the argument.

You misidentify key documents in a way a person familiar with the issue would not; you contradict yourself on central claims, etc. Many of these facts will probably be covered in an audio now that you have backed out of the second debate – not because your writing is overly significant, but because it further demonstrates the falsity of BOD and its defenders. The only things your writings expose are the numerous flaws in your arguments. I could expatiate on this point if I wanted to.

SPERAY REPLIES: I’ll be waiting to see, but if Dimond can easily misrepresent me, then you can bet that he’ll do the same with everyone and everything else.

It’s also interesting that, after I pointed out how your blog comments deliberately omitted numerous e-mails in our correspondence, in order to hide key facts and give a false impression, you have now added those missing e-mails to the previous post on your blog in order make it appear as if you had them there all along. That’s very interesting. By doing so you also dishonestly attempt to make it appear as if I was inaccurate in saying you omitted those e-mails, when I was not. You indeed omitted them. By the way, I have electronic proof of both versions of your blog post – the one which omits the e-mails, and the one which contains them.

SPERAY REPLIES: Another lie. I stated, IT’S THERE NOW” after Dimond pointed it out. I didn’t intentionally omit anything. I showed where I omitted some of my own emails that show where I stand. Dimond’s point is moot except that it proves that he rashly judges and condemns as usual. He thinks he’s a god.

In conclusion, our previous debate, and your refusal to have the second debate which you agreed to have, says all one needs to know. If you do not indicate within the next day or two that you have changed your mind about doing the next telephone debate, I will proceed as mentioned above.

-Bro. Peter Dimond

SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve clearly dealt where I stand. Everyone who reads this post can know beforehand, that Dimond will continue with his misrepresentations of my work. Not surprising, he does the same thing with the Church, because he thinks he’s a god who knows it all.When you have a god complex like Dimond, you never need to apologize, never need to be corrected, never commit errors, can never be questioned, think your views are the logical ones (because you see everything in a twisted way that runs contrary to the obvious), think you can read the hearts and motives of all men, and that everyone else has the problems while you have all the answers. You even think you know better than the whole Church as you call its official catechisms, laws, encyclicals, etc. erroneous because they don’t square up to your personal interpretation of the Bible, Councils, etc. I WON’T DEBATE OR EVEN COMMUNICATE WITH THE LIKES OF DIMOND AND HIS ILK.

 

Read Full Post »

Canon law VS Dimond of MHFM

Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”

The Sacred Cannons by Rev. John A. Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D. and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.

Commentary on the Code: “The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire.”

Canon 737 declares, “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation….”

This canon ends the debate on the Church’s official interpretation of Canon 4 of the Council of Trent.

However, Dimond argues that since the law contradicts (his understanding of) the dogma, goes against the long history of not treating catechumens as baptized, and was not signed by the pope, the Code of Law is fallible, and, in this case, heretical.

Dimond’s failure to make proper distinctions and apply nuances correctly keeps him from accepting the Church’s explanations.

Dimond quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia and states: The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to beemployed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial forcatechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith. The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right.” (Outside of the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, Bro. Peter Dimond, p. 160 )

The problem is that the same argument could be used against the Latin Rite for refusing the Chalice to the Faithful. Since the Church never prohibited the faithful receiving the Chalice for hundreds of years, does that make the new law erroneous or heretical? For over a thousand years, the Church always gave infants Communion with Baptism. Did Rome err for contradicting the entire history of the Church when it changed the law? Both of these laws are tied to the Faith, too. Many more examples could be given, but these two suffice. 

Because a Church law, which is tied to the Faith, changed after so many years doesn’t imply that it’s heretical, unless of course, the law was previously condemned as heretical or intrinsically evil, which, of course, is impossible lest the Gates of Hell prevail.

Dimond continues, The 1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either, as proven by the fact that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith. The actual Bull promulgating the 1917 Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of State, was the main author and compiler of the canons. Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in the following teaching of Pope Pius XII. 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943: “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors.” 431

This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the “Catholic” (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church.” 

The problem with Dimond’s argument here is two-fold.

The 1917 Code was approved by the Church. 

It doesn’t have to be signed by the pope. There was a big celebration by Pope Benedict XV when he promulgated the Code of Law. Pope St. Pius X condemned those who don’t accept the authority of those decisions that are approved by the Pontiff. The Code of Law has been approved by Pope Benedict XV and Dimond rejects it, thus he’s condemned by Pope St. Pius X.

Dimond is basically arguing that the law of the Church is meaningless, has no real authority, and in the end harmful. It’s simply preposterous to claim that some laws in the code are heretical and aren’t authoritative because the pope didn’t sign it. Dimond’s cafeteria style of accepting only the laws he thinks are orthodox is the height of arrogance. His rejection of the law of the Church places him in the realm of antichrist. 

Further Consequences

The consequences of rejecting the law of the Church is damning because the application of the law trickles down to the practice of the Church. We have funeral masses for catechumes. Dimond would have to say that these masses lead to impiety because they imply Baptism of Desire and would necessarily lead one to believe in Baptism of Desire. 

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema [cf. n. 943]. Can. 7. The Council of Trent, Session XXII, (D. 954).

Dimond’s position necessarily requires him to reject funeral masses for catechumens. 

If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema. Can. 13. The Council of Trent, Session VII, (D. 856).

Dimond’s position necessarily requires the priest to disdain the approved rite of funeral masses said for catechumens. 

I’m not a canon lawyer or theologian, but it appears that Dimond falls under two anathemas of the Council of Trent, which he uses to argue against Baptism of Desire. How ironic!

Secondly, we don’t judge laws as fallible or infallible based on our own personal interpretation whether they correspond or contradict canons, dogmas, etc. 

Dimond doesn’t just pick and choose what law he’ll believe, but he makes the determination what level of authority it has and whether it’s Catholic or not.

Fallible laws (I’m not necessarily saying the Code is fallible) doesn’t preclude that we can call them harmful, evil, or dangerous and therefore, reject them.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832): “Furthermore, the discipline [includes laws] sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833): “…[the evil “reformers”] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?”

 Pope Gregory XVI is condemning Dimond for appropriating for himself the right which is proper only for the pope.

 Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794): “The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced ‘in every article that which pertains to faith and to essence of religion must be distinguished from that which is proper to discipline,’ it adds, ‘in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism’; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, – false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Denzinger 1578; DS 2678)

Pope Pius VI condemns Dimond’s proposition that canons 1239.2 and 737 are dangerous because they are heretical leading men to believe in Baptism of Desire [superstition according to MHFM].

Dimond also makes accusations against other laws found in the Code by misrepresenting the meanings of each of the particular laws. However, for the sake of brevity, we’ll stop here.

Conclusion

Dimond is condemned by Pope Pius IX.

Dimond is condemned by Pope St. Pius X.

Dimond is condemned by Pope Gregory XVI.

Dimond is condemned by Pope Pius VI.

Dimond appears to be under two anathemas of Trent. 

Part 3 will deal with Dimond’s accusations against the Roman Catechism.

Read Full Post »

Since the debate (phone conversation) between Bro. Peter Dimond and myself, I’ve received literally hundreds of emails and comments. Several supporters of The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) have challenged me to debunk the Dimond brother’s book “Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation” point by point.

This will be the first of many short articles that will expose the lies and misrepresentations by the MHFM on the doctrine Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Due to my long hours of normal work each day, I will try keep each of these writings brief.

To begin, Bro. Peter Dimond is very fond of using and quoting the phrase “absolute necessity” in regards to Baptism, but fails to make distinctions between “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” and between ordinary circumstances and extraordinary circumstances.

There’s no question that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. It’s taught everywhere by everyone. Each time that exceptions are given by the same Church authorities, who teach the absolute necessity of Baptism, Dimond assumes there’s a contradiction. He simply refuses to accept that the phrase “absolute necessity” used by popes, synods, etc. on the sacrament of baptism is attributed to “necessity of precept” and ordinary circumstances. The laws, catechisms, and papal writings clearly explain or imply a difference. Dimond dismisses them all as having no real authority because they don’t square up to his understanding. In other words, Dimond’s understanding of the usage of “absolute necessity” overrides all the Church’s explanations and laws.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains necessity here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

This point alone takes care of about 80% of their book. Once proper distinctions are made, all the canons, papal teachings, catechisms, laws, etc. fit nicely together without any contradictions whatsoever!

Part 2 will deal with the Code of Canon law and its implications.

Read Full Post »

John P wrote an excellent criticism of my debate with Bro. Peter in the comment section:

Hello Steven,
I listened to the debate with Robert Dimond with interest.  My first comment is that you should never have agreed to debate him. The reason is that you were unprepared and it really showed.  I am surprised that you have been involved with Sedevacantism for as long as you have, and were not prepared to debate Dimond in the least, neither on your own position which came across as unsure and contradictory, but also in the cheap tactics used by Dimond on his opponents.  Frankly you acted shell-shocked.  It reminded me of a Mike Tyson fight from the 80’s where a challenger wanted a shot at the title fight and made all kinds of noise in the press in the months leading up to the big fight.  But once the fight began his opponent was knocked out within 30 seconds.  Frankly, you debated so poorly that I wouldn’t clearly know what your position was were it not for reading the comments and some of your Website.  You had very little to offer in counter arguments, nor did you effectively question Dimond on his.  As you should have known, one of Dimond’s tactics is to bombard his opponents with questions “let me ask you this then, etc.” and keep them always on the defense.  You walked right into it as though you never heard him “debate” before, if that is what you can call what he does, and you got schooled on a topic you should have been able to stand your ground on.  Please understand that it’s neither brave nor smart to pick a fight with a superior fighter and not prepare yourself for his best shots.  I suggest the next time you debate Dimond that you prepare in advance for the topic, suggest a moderator for equal time, get a neutral party to control the microphone volume and prepare yourself better for the barrage of assaults he employs against his opponents. He can be led to lose composure if you actually stand in there with him.  But you can’t do it unprepared like that or you will end up embarrassing yourself.  IF you debate him again, on behalf of those who believe in Baptism of Desire as a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, please prepare for the debate, or just don’t do it at all. All my best,
John P

I apologize to everyone that I have let down, if you felt let down by my phone conversation with Bro. Peter. It was hardly a real debate. It’s true that I wasn’t prepared with the quotes. I should have known that  Bro. Peter Dimond would misquote the bishops and priests, but I assumed he would tell the truth.

Also, I should have recorded it myself so that my voice didn’t come out sounding so small. You can hear him overpower me, when in fact this wouldn’t have been the case if I recorded it. The conversation would have sounded differently and you could hear me say things that wasn’t heard because of Peter’s interruptions.

Anyway, I greatly appreciate the criticism from John. If he felt I did poorly, I’m sure many others have as well, but are afraid of hurting my feelings by telling me so. It’s funny that John used the analogy of a story from boxing. When I was in the ring 10 years ago, there was no mister nice guy. I broke noses and make people quit in the middle of the round. I’m not too proud of it now, because it doesn’t reflect the life of Christ Who is supposed to live in me. The fact is you need to be ready for a fight as John correctly pointed out and you have to be tough with certain people.

You can’t be friendly with Bro Peter Dimond.

A good friend of mine told me today that it’s all a good learning experience and to make the best of it.

The one good thing that has definitely come out from all of this is my ability to explain and clarify my position here on the website and to point out the facts that might have been missed, and I have learned what not to do the next time.

Thank you John for your correction! God bless you!

Read Full Post »

Antonio (from comment section in the next post) brought up something that I don’t want lost in the comment section. It’s very important.

Remember in the debate that I was to defend the statements from bishops and priests such as the statement below:

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.’

When I pointed out that Bro. Peter mislead me with the wrong words, Antonio wrote: “I know Bob Dimond said state of grace, which I believe is a reasonable thing to do given that Fahey said ‘supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul.’ The state of grace is supernatural.”

The problem with the above statement is that out of Christian charity, Bro. Peter Dimond should have tried to give the benefit of the doubt to Fr. Denis Fahey and Bp. McKenna on the meaning, rather condemning them as heretics and then calling me a liar when I tried to defend them.

St. Ignatius of Loyola taught: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it, and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved (St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22.)

Bro. Peter was at complete odds with this teaching of St. Ignatius. As you can hear in his debates, he doesn’t ever correct anyone with love.   

I wrote to Antonio that a state of grace is supernatural, “but notice the qualifier, ‘which God wishes to see in EVERY soul.’ If taken to mean ‘state of grace’ then there would be no need to be baptized, believe, hold the faith, be sorry, etc. yet I personally know Bp McKenna and what he believes. You may call him up yourself and ask him whether souls outside of the Church are in a state of grace. I assure you he wouldn’t say souls outside of the Church can be in a state of grace. So why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he means what I suggested…Bro. Peter jumps to conclusions just like our email proves. He doesn’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it’s the reasonable thing to do…

if we are well-intentioned, does it come from us or is it a response to actual grace? Since we can’t do anything good, not even have good intentions without God’s grace, then responding positively to it would be, in a sense, supernatural. No one can convert without have good intentions, which comes from responding to God’s grace which puts us in some sense of the supernatural. It doesn’t have to mean “state of grace” and that’s my point. Do you still disagree or have I given a reasonable answer? Bro Peter would have interrupted me and called me liar and said I was contradicting myself because he wouldn’t hear a reasonable answer. He’s not interested in what I have to say.”

Antonio continued, “Also, I will make a point that Bob simply didnt make for some reason: Sanborn and all the other sedevacantists are speaking about people who DIE as pagans, jews idolaters etc., people WHO DIE in that state, who GO to their particular judgment as a non-Catholic, outside the fold and without the Faith, THEY ARE SPEAKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DIE IN THAT CONDITION, but YOU were saying over and over again that “at death we don’t know what happens, God may enlighten them in a mystery, this is what BOD is!” when Sanborn and others DO NOT SAY ANY OF THAT. They said nothing of them being “enlightened” at death and what YOU were saying, and that was totally dishonest on your part. Bob pointed this out but not as good as he should have.”

I replied to Antonio: From the perspective of the external forum, it would appear that all them [pagans, Jews, Idolater, etc.] are dying outside of the Church. BOD is something we don’t see. It happens at death.

This is another reasonable explanation how the statements from Sanborn and others can be reconciled with the dogma. It’s a matter of perspective. I made this point perfectly clear in the debate, but I’m sure it got lost with all the interruptions, name calling, etc. not to mention the fact that I sounded like I was deep inside a cave or something. Apparent contradictions aren’t necessarily actual contradictions!

I continued my reply by quoting Rev. Michael Müller here:  https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/fr-michael-muller-c-s-s-r-taught-the-doctrine-of-baptism-of-desire/

Again, Bro. Peter was at complete odds with the teaching of St. Ignatius. He rushes to judgment, condemns, and he does it with malevolence and hostility.  

If some nobody like me could come up with a logical and reasonable explanation how the statements from these bishops and priests understand the doctrine correctly, why not a proclaimed Benedictine who spends all his time studying the issues? Well, it doesn’t really matter, because Bro. Peter rejects BOD completely. Even when the correct interpretation and explanation is given, Bro. Peter will condemn it as heretical. He doesn’t believe that God can save a soul without water baptism at death in a mystery that we don’t understand as Rev. Michael Müller clearly explains in his catechism.

Read Full Post »