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!
Personally I do not think you did all that badly. Bro. Dimond will not see the point of any argument beyond his own.
Who writes his postings. I think his web pages are far beyond his abilities.
Thanks Ronald!
You have to pardon me, Steven because I really do not look at myself as one who gives pep talks. So, bear with me…
Often when we get floored, we learn more than we did than if we “won”: what we should have done, what we could have done, or what we would have done differently had we known x, y, and z. None of that matters. What matters is you got out there and did it; not very many of the gutsiest of us have that type of courage to risk it all. Most people do not have the guts to email these clowns much less have a staged “debate” which amounts to a nasty ass phone call in the middle of the night which was on their terms (as opposed to agreed terms). That is not a debate! A debate, like a courtroom, gives you ample time to study your evidence, prepare your evidence, and involves a credible
Moderator/judge–and because it is a Catholic debate, it is governed by additional rules of Catholic virtues which have the salvation of souls as the highest law and accordingly, will make that way of salvation clearer for your “jury”. Obviously, they threw the Catholic debate tradition–which is to increase knowledge of the Faith and that the truth prevail for the salvation of souls–along with Catholic virtues which govern this arena–out the window. I would tell you not to worry about it, but that’s nonsense. What matters is that you did it and you showed yourself as a man who is willing to put his money where his mouth his with a group of self-made, loud-mouthed, vipers who make us look bad. That is no small feat, my friend! I am proud of you. However, I believe you can do better..
Just as Rocky didn’t beat Clubber Lang the first time, he knew that despite a few dents and upset feelings, he had to overcome his anticipation and prepare. He had to do a ton of soul searching. I am not talking about putting on a pair of boxing gloves and going up to upstate New York to pick a fight; I am telling you that if you want to rematch these clowns, you should to do so PROVIDED THE RULES OF A CATHOLIC DEBATE ARE FOLLOWED. If they agree, study that recent “debate”/middle of the night phone call: make notes, get to the point you can anticipate them, but above all know yourself in how you will respond when you know what tricks they are going to pull; you have got to keep your head if you are going to expose them for what they are: detractors of Catholics everywhere, giving the odor of heresy, and purveyors of bad example. Pray to the Father that He assist you; pray to the Sacred Heart of Jesus to touch their hardened hearts; pray to the Holy Ghost that your words and the only necessary knowledge be guided by Him and come out of you at that time; and pray Rosary a day and have Our Good Mother give you some encouragement to debate them as Her Son debated the folks of His time. You know as well as I do, She disposes of graces from the Holy Trinity how She sees fit.
Often, we learn more in defeat (or even in a perceived defeat) than a resounding victory where there was no doubt. If you decide to debate them for real next time, make sure everything is in place so the Faith will triumph and will shine as It should.
Godspeed.
Ian Gareth
Btw, you owe no apology.
I put my reply here because the other section has too many comments already.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church has cleared it up. They still haven’t defined it (you’re right), but they have taught it over and over in encyclicals, catechisms, and the law of the Church which we are not free to reject or say that it might not be true. Infallibility rests in the universal and ordinary magisterium, too, which is where and how BOD is taught.
This is where i disagree. The Roman Catechism has only one sentence which seems to be teaching BOD (the term “baptism of desire” is not mentioned at all, nor is BOB) but it is contradicted by everything else it says about baptism; it says the sacrament is obligatory on ALL who are to be saved and it makes no exception to the sacrament and it even says it is the unanimous consent of holy writers.
In fact, what the Roman Catechism says about baptism rules out any notion of bod/bob.
SPERAY REPLIES:YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND BOD THEN WHICH MAKE THE REST OF YOUR POINTS MOOT. The Catechism made it perfectly clear that man can be save apart from water baptism. This is BOD in a nutshell. This is not hard stuff.
Where has it been taught “over and over in encyclicals”? The terms do not appear in a single encyclical. The fact is no Pope has ever mentioned BOD nor BOB by name either. The only thing you can quote from a pope is a mere speech of Pius XII, a SPEECH, which could by all means not even be accurate and we are not even 100% sure he could have said it, and anyways, even then he does not even say “baptism of desire”.
SPERAY REPLIES: You sound like a Protestant who rejects Purgatory because the word is not in the Bible. BOD is an expression given to an event, viz, God saving someone without water baptism. It’s that simple. You can find it everywhere, catechisms, encyclicals, laws, teachings from saints, AND NOT A SINGLE CONDEMNATION BY ANY AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH WHATSOEVER!!!!
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX expressly taught it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, On Promotion of False Doctrines Encyclical, August 10, 1863:
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
First of all, this has NOTHING to do with baptism of desire. Pius IX does not even use the term, nor says he is referring to it, nor is there any mention about baptism at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: He definitely implies it because the context is life after death and he’s explaining how someone can get to heaven without living a Catholic life on earth.
This is something that i must point out that i have seen done over and over again: the proponents of BOD somehow mix BOD with invincible ignorance, when the two have nothing to do with each other.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh yes they do. Pope Pius IX just gave an example. However, invincible ignorance can be possible for others, too. Only God knows the hearts and minds of people. I’m not saying that there is such a case and neither is Pope Pius IX, (I made that point in the debate) the qualifier is “IF” there is such a person can God can do it.
Like i said, the saints always taught bod with respect to a catechumen, not someone who was invincibly ignorant of the faith. But now BOD has been applied to the invincibly ignorant who dont even have a clue about baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: I gave you an example of one saint. Again, it is God who infuses the Faith IF THERE IS SUCH A PERSON with the right motives and it pleases God to save the person. Invincible ignorance doesn’t save, but it is the excuse for an individual for God to give the possibility to save him by infusing the faith and granting him perfect contrition.
Either way, what the Pope says here seems consistent with what Saint Thomas and even St Leonard of Port Maurice in “the little number of the saved” say about the INVINCIBLY IGNORANT, it has nothing to do with BOD.
SPERAY REPLIES: I point out the fact in my book that maybe no one is saved by BOD since so very few are saved knowing the faith as they live. BOD is about possibilities. Can God do it? WE must say yes he can? The Dimond brothers say no He can’t.
This is from the Dimonds book: Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel] attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: They got part of it right except the last 5 words. When does it happen? Remember that Pope Pius IX also stated in Singulari Quidem “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” The Dimond’s deny he wrote this because they must say that he’s a heretic and antipope if they were honest enough to admit he wrote it. Anyway, the fact is we already have the Roman Catechism that spells it out. Pope Pius IX understood and believe BOD as I’ve explained it.
According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from darkness.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s not in dispute since God will enlighten the ignorant individual at death.
Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.”
1 Thess. 5:4‐5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness… For all you are the children of the light.”
Colossians 1:12‐13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”
1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
2 Corinthians 4:3‐4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
2 Timothy 1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the Gospel.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I (+1870): “… no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the Gospel,’ as he must to attain salvation, without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing the truth.”
SPERAY REPLIES: None of these quotes reject BOD, nor do they have anything to do with the subject.
So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the good‐willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sorry, but this doesn’t work for 2 reasons. First, Pope Pius would have been as clear and just stated it thus. He didn’t do so, because he didn’t mean it the way you’re wanting to interpret it. Second: You would have to say that QCM is very ambiguous at best which means it would have to be rendered heretical.
Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good‐willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.
SPERAY REPLIES: EXACTLY, but at death, and that’s the point. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God could do at death? If you already believe he could miraculously do it during someone’s life, why not at death? God can do whatever He wants.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. In BOD, God enlightens the mind of the ignorant with the Faith and repentance, and the person is no longer ignorant of the Faith. That’s what I repeated over and over in the debate.
Well this isnt even the definition of BOD all the saints have given it.
SPERAY REPLIES: I think it’s implied! But it doesn’t matter what the saints said, when you have the Roman Catechism being held and believed by the faithful for 500 years without a single condemnation of this point.
And let me reply to the explicit/implicit faith part.
First, faith in the essential dogmas of the Faith and faith in baptism/desire for it are very different things. With regard to the former, all the saints and even the Holy Office said you have to have EXPLICIT faith in and KNOWLEDGE OF the Trinity and Incarnation at least to be saved. But now the novelty says that you no longer need to have explicit faith in the essential mysteries to be saved, but IMPLICIT, and they say this about those who are in invincible ignorance, and there can be no such thing. If they are enlightened and come to the knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation, then how will it be implicit? They will no longer be ignorant.
SPERAY REPLIES: You must have at least implicit faith for God to do BOD, and then the individual who’s infused with the faith will have explicit faith. So your point is fine if you understand how to apply it.
And also, what St. Thomas said about implicit desire was with regards to BAPTISM, not the Trinity and the Incarnation, and if you read what he said, it is obvious he was talking about people who already KNEW of Christ.
So now this is the issue at hand: almost every single sedevacantist priest, like Cekada, Sanborn etc. say that people can be saved in any religion, dying in invincible ignorance, without any explicit knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and THAT is HERETICAL. It also has nothing to do with BOD, which is why i said that there has been a total perversion of it.
SPERAY REPLIES: THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. I’ve made this point very clear in the debate. In the external forum, it may appear that someone is in another religion, but in the internal forum where God acts in a way that we don’t see, such a person will not be in his false religion if he’s saved. If you can be saved in a false religion or outside of the Church, then BOD is a completely meaningless doctrine.
Also, i will repeat again what i said: the debate was whether the sedevacantist and traditionalist priests who believe in BOD believe souls can be saved in false religions, and they most certainly do.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have shown that they don’t.
They have corrupted what the very saints say about BOD/BOB (restricted to those who KNOW of Christ and the Faith) and now apply it to those who are in invincible ignorance, and who DIE in their ignorance and in any false religions. They are now saying that these people who die in ignorance and in false religions are “saved by baptism of desire”. That is not BOD, but a heretical perversion of it.
Furthermore, what you say BOD is, is not what these priests say it is, and you are contradicting them. Sanborn specifically said people who die in false religions, as idolaters and pagans etc. are saved by the Catholic Church in spite of the fact that they die like that. It were the same as if i were to say that atheists who die as atheists are saved by the Catholic Church in spite of their atheism.
SPERAY REPLIES: He was speaking from the perspective of the external forum. I don’t like how he said it, but like I told the Peter, we sometimes we use words and phrases that have a particular understanding and meaning that may not reflect what it means. This is why St. Ignatius stated, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.” Why did he say this? Because we don’t always say what we mean. I’ve done it many times. Have you?
SPERAY REPLIES:YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND BOD THEN WHICH MAKE THE REST OF YOUR POINTS MOOT.
Are you serious?
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m sorry. Go back and read your original comments. I answered them for you. I was just tired at the time I wrote that and was getting lazy. I’m trying to balance my time with 2 jobs, a family (particularly a 10 yr. old who wanted to spend time with me at the time I was answering comments and emails, and everything else that comes with life. Answering all these comments is a full time job and I’m doing it for free. My poor family is suffering my absence with me being on the computer on the little time I have off each day. It’s not been fair to them. Please forgive me if I don’t answer everything or make lazy comments sometimes. I’m only human. If you want to call me sometime, let me know and I’ll be glad to talk. I’m not like Bro Peter who judges and condemns everyone to hell who disagrees with him, or call everyone a liar when he doesn’t like the answer.
Now this sounds just like what the proponents of evolution say when you refute them, “you’re just too dumb to understand evolution and you don’t even know what it is so anything you say is worthless.”
Face it, you and all the other proponents of BOD have perverted it and now it has nothing to do with what the Saints said originally. Now it means that people who die in invincible ignorance and in false religions and outside the Church and without any knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation are saved.
What i wrote was very clear. It appears YOU are the one who doesn’t understand what i said.
SPERAY REPLIES: Again, I apologize. Please go back and read my answers.
I listened to the entire “debate” as it is called on you tube by the Dimond brothers, and I thought it was an interesting conversation more than anything rather than a debate. Br. Peter controlled the whole thing pretty well, but I believe Steve did a good job explaining himself and was careful as to how they asked him questions. Steve kept trying to clarify himself and Br. Peter was confusing things making it sound like Steve held to the same position as those statements made by Trad bishops. if somebody called me after I got off work at night and wanted to start a debate a 1:20 A.M. (like Br. Peter did), I probably wouldn’t be able to do it at all. So for those who want to criticize Steve, why don’t you criticize Br. Peter for being a little more considerate of time.
In my opinion the very fact the Br. Peter wanted to debate Steve on this issue was hypocrisy on his part. If they think Bp. McKenna is a heretic, then why are they promoting his exorcisms? Is that not a sin against the Faith? Plus how is Br. Peter going to answer to God for attending a Byzantine rite Catholic Mass united to antipope Francis’ I church, when Pope St. Agatho has stated that “he who prays with heretics is a heretic.” And they have the gumption to call Steve dishonest.
It’s pretty clear that the Br. Peter along with God can judge men’s hearts because as Br. Peter claims at the end of the video/audio presentation 1:09:24 “We have Faith. You don’t, 1 john 4:6 says we are of God… Those who hear us…etc.” What humble man especially a lay brother speaks like that?
What do the Dimond brothers think of the Church recognizing saints who became saints through being baptized in their blood like…
SAINT EMERENTIANA: Those familiar with the traditional Breviary (dropped from the Novus Ordo “missals”) will know the story of this virgin and martyr. The idea that the Church would have her religious commemorate such a person who was – according to those who deny Baptism of Desire and Blood – on a yearly basis for some 1800 years – is to say the least “offensive to pious ears.” Let us quote the Breviary directly:
“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.”
This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands. Some have argued that she was baptized – but such is absurd as she is both called a catechumen, and the Church states in her liturgy that she was “baptized in her own blood.”[4]
Yet another example, enshrined in the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of ST. RESPICIUS.
“During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and toggether with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurredboth were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.”
taken from Rama Coomerswamy’s website
Do you think the SSPX are real Catholics?
Antonio are you asking me this?
Yes, you.
John P. criticism’s are not bad regarding Steve needing a moderator and more control of the speaker, but I will criticize John by saying that Br. Peter will never change his mind about this anyways and somebody needed to debate him over the phone. Steve didn’t contradict himself, it was Br. Peter who made it sound like he was contradicting himself, which is what he will do to anybody. So John P. why don’t you debate Br. Peter over the issue and see how you do. Be prepared to be called demonic, possessed, a liar, uncharitable, a heretic an apostate… etc. because it will come inevitably if you disagree with something he says.
I believe that Br. Peter picked a lame topic to talk about since he sells and promotes Bp. McKenna’s exorcism cases. What kind of hypocrite is he?
No I don’t think the SSPX are real Catholics. If they were then they would obey their pope and not disregard everything he teaches and does like wash the feet of a Muslim women on Holy Thursday. The SSPX as Rama Coomeraswamy put it are a “cult within a cult.” Not every SSPX member but most SSPX people I have met are distinctly different from other Trad Catholics as far as their attitude towards people go (cold and unfriendly). Why do you ask Antonio?
I ask because most sedevacantists excuse almost all the false traditionalists out there, even the most obstinate ones, and since you said that the Dimond were hypocrites for selling the exorcisms of McKenna but calling him a heretic and for going to their Byzantine mess while condemning the Vatican II, i wanted to see if you would condemn the SSPX as well because they also have una cum messes and consider the Vatican II sect as the Catholic Church of course.
For example, I have spoken with the ones at Novus Ordo Watch and they think people like Ferrara, Salza, Vennari, the ones at “Tradition in Action” etc., who are public and obstinate heretics if there ever were ones, might actually be Catholic! I wanted to see if you were one of those who excuse all these obstinate heretics who dont want to see the truth and the facts because almost all the sedevacantists consider the false traditionalists and even the SSPX as Catholics.
Interesting. It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of trad sedes excuse people like Ferrera, salza, Vennari etc. Nothing surprises me anymore it seems. I think you and I might get along Antonio.
One thing I would like to say is that the Dimond Brothers don’t seem to think that there are some people out there in trad groups who are erroneous Catholics “material heretics” in good Faith and that if they understood something correctly like the sedevacantist position they would immediately convert. I’ve met a few that truly seem like they are incapable of understanding a teaching not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t grasp it through no fault of there own. It seems like the Dimond brothers expect even retarded Catholic people to to understand certain Catholic teachings otherwise they are going to hell to. Does that make sense?
This does not mean that it’s okay to be an SSPX member nor does it mean that one should attend their Mass knowing where they essentially stand on certain issues
Sure, i know there are of course people who dont know better and those who may be erring in good faith, but i wonder how many of them there could really be, since all of the false traditionalist publications and magazines and people openly and publicly attack sedevacantism and they have done so for decades now, so i dont really think you could be a “traditionalist” and not know about sedevacantism. It would probably be easier to know than not to know.
Antonio,
I have a dear friend who now holds to the sedevacantist position, but for years was mislead from those publications and such. He didn’t get his head around the issues even when he saw the arguments. It took me years of talking to him before he finally got it. Now he’s a diehard trad Catholic going around trying to get people to see that Rome has lost the faith. We don’t know why people are where they are at and that’s why we can’t judge their hearts and intentions.
Well that’s just called bad will, because this isn’t rocket science and if you just do the research and look at the evidence it’s pretty clear.
In my case, i bumped into the dimonds website by accident, i was spooked because i was a clueless novus ordinarian, and i thought they were probably protestants just talking bad about the Church so i decided not to look at anything anymore and i didn’t for a couple weeks or a month maybe, but i always had this feeling that something was really wrong with these “popes” so then i decided to get to the bottom of it and the more i read the more i was convincing myself that it was all true. Once i saw all the arguments in favor of sedevacantism i knew it was true.
If i wouldn’t have been “convinced” when i read and understood/thought of/etc the arguments for sedevacantism, then i would have been in bad will and in sin and i would have been dishonest and a liar, as no doubt your friend was, but i couldn’t do that.
These people are also negligent and just dishonest, they dont want to get to the bottom of it so they dont look at the evidence and dont investigate, they dont want to dig deep enough for fear of what they may find. My novus ordo uncles are exactly like that, bad willed and dishonest heretics who don’t care about the truth.
I had this burning desire to know the truth and get to the bottom of it so i wouldn’t just take people at their word but i myself did all the research and i wouldn’t be satisfied until i would find the answer. I also had no one to tell me anything so i had to read and look at everything by myself.
But do most of these false traditionalists have that burning desire for the truth? No! They just swallow whatever nonsense and lie their leaders tell them.
No doubt God is the One who had mercy on me and gave me the chance to know about all this of course, all thanks and glory to Him!
I understand you Antonio. It makes sense what you are saying. I think I went through the same experience as you, but the only difference is that I had help.
I will add that the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X says this of certain class of people.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Notice that Pope St. Pius X is careful as to how he answers this question. The question is how can you tell for certain in all cases whether somebody in the Novus ordo as an example is really bad willed as to what he is doing. What if you Antonio died in that monthly period where you had that feeling that there was something wrong with those “popes.” Would you have been bad willed around that time or would you be considered practicing the Faith as best as you could at that point? Only God knows that. Yet the Dimond brothers probably would say that if you would have died at that point you would have infallibly gone to hell for being in the Novus Ordo heresy.
I’m not saying that all novus ordians are excused. I’m just saying we don’t know how many out there would change around that point of death. Only God knows. That’s the point of the issue. I think Steve made himself clear but the DImond brothers not believing in all of Pope St. Pius X’s Catechism confused the issue as if some things aren’t a mystery and are just set in stone ipso facto. The Trinity is a mystery, the Incarnation is a mystery, the Eucharist is a mystery. Why cannot this issue be a mystery to them. It doesn’t matter how many people are out there like that. It just matters whether the Church teaches it and what our limitations are as people making certain judgments about things. This is why Christ said judge not lest thou be judged. Plus if they believe that a Catholic can die in mortal sin and be saved through a perfect contrition when the Church teaches he would need to go to confession why not have a problem with this. Again it’s a mystery and it may never happen, but the church teaches it and the dimond brothers along with everybody else believe in this, so it’s not really much different from BOD and the invincibly ignorant whoever they may be.
Martin wrote:
<>
Pope St. Pius X did not write that Catechism. It was attributed to him and had his name on it but it was not penned by him any more than the Catechism of the Council of Trent was written by the Popes of the Council or by the Council itself.
SPERAY REPLIES: Where’s the info that states that Pope St. Pius X didn’t write his catechism? The Catechism of Trent was promulgated by Pope ST. Pius V and he repeatedly commended it. Pope Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it… 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. Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter of September 8, 1899, to the Bishops and clergy of France, recommended it because of “exactness of its doctrine…”
Furthermore, the section you just quoted is heretical.
SPERAY REPLIES: No it’s not. That’s a silly opinion that comes from 2 men that were born in the 1970’s.
It goes against the Athanasian Creed, against what St. Augustine and St. Thomas say, and against Holy Office decrees and against what has always been taught.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. I’ve been clear about that in past comments and have explained it clearly how it does not.
In fact, it goes against what Pope St. Pius himself said!
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already explained how this statement doesn’t go against BOD either.
So much for that.
<>
He did not write that Catechism and he says otherwise in his own Encyclical.
SPERAY REPLIES: They aren’t contradictions at all. You’re not getting it.
<>
Well, when you explain it clearly to them, and they reject it.
<>
I had no idea of what Traditionalism was at all, not the faintest idea. I did not even know there was a Latin Mass. Of course i believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation and claimed to be Catholic, and i didn’t know anything about the Dimonds or about heresy or anything at all, so i believe i would have been excused from heresy, but because i was a novus ordinarian, i was living in mortal sin because that’s the thing: since the Novus Ordo isn’t the true Church, and it no longer even teaches true Catholic Morals, it is almost impossible, if not certainly impossible, that the adherents of this false sect will not be in some mortal sin or another. I have a “devout” Novus Ordo aunt who seems to be the “nicest” lady you could meet, and yet she is in heresy and apostasy and she is in morally condemned practices/situations/etc. She dresses immodestly and wears pants and causes scandal and practices birth control, NFP most probably, and is leading many to Hell since she is a “catechist”, and yet she is a novus ordo “conservative” and a “devout” novus ordinarian. I have told her all about the Novus Ordo and yet she is obstinate and bad willed.
So yes, if i would have died then, i would have definitely gone to Hell, but not for heresy.
<>
They would have been right.
<>
I’m not saying all of them are without excuse; the fact is if you belong to the Novus Ordo you most probably will be in mortal sin, as i was my whole life, whether doctrinally or morally. For the clueless ones in the novus ordo, they will be in several moral mortal sins, and definitely in heresy and apostasy, as i have witnessed myself, in fact every single novus ordinarian i know is in objective mortal sin; for the ones who are “traditional” or “conservative”, chances are they will have heard about sedevacantism and rejected it.
<>
The issue here is whether someone can be saved without knowing of and believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation and without the Catholic Faith; that is a defined dogma and to reject it is mortal sin. God decided it to be so, even if it is a hard saying. There is no “mystery”, we already know who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven because the Church has already said so. To “mystify” this is to go against the dogmas and against what the Church teaches so it is heretical.
<>
Yes, and the Church already cleared this up.
<>
Confession is a necessity of precept, not of means, and such a person would certainly not die in mortal sin.
<>
There is no mystery. Those who die without explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation cannot be saved. It’s that simple. It is all in God’s hands and He knows everything so we just have to trust that those who are predestined to salvation will be saved and know of the Catholic Faith no matter what. Those who die without that knowledge were just not of the elect.
SPERAY REPLIES: As I’ve explained, and as Fr Michael Muller explains, at the moment of death, God infuses the faith, enlightens them, give the grace for perfect contrition, etc. so that a person who was invincibly ignorant but of goodwill, will no longer be ignorant and will be judged as a Catholic because he was infused the faith at death.
I don’t know why what you wrote didn’t appear in my response.
Does that happen if you close something in <>?
I’m going to try something.
See if it works.
Hm, the whole thig disappeared now. I used double when i quoted you and right now i tried using only one on each side and instead it all disappeared.
Antonio I don’t mean to pick at you like I did with Justin (by the way I’m sorry to Justin if I said things in a hateful tone instead of a fraternal tone) but to say the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X was attributed to him and not promulgated in 1908 like history says is a complete invented idea that either came form the Dimond brothers or somebody like them. The catechism itself would be a lie because it says that it was written by him two or three times on the back of the book. You said the statement from the catechism was heretical and that it contradicted what Pope St. Pius X said in Ascerbo Nimis. If you’re saying the statement is heretical then your saying Pope St. Pius X and St. Pius V are heretical since their catechisms teach this. This would mean they are not true popes if they are heretical. Ascerbo Nimis says this “…the chief cause of the present indifference … is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine.” “In matters of religion, the majority of men in our times must be considered uninstructed.” The Saint then established catechetical regulations and proclaims: “We … strictly command that they be observed and carried out in all dioceses of the world.” He further emphasizes: “The catechetical instruction shall be based on the CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.”
How do the Dimond Brothers get around this one?
#SPERAY REPLIES: Where’s the info that states that Pope St. Pius X didn’t write his catechism?#
Lol.
Pope Pius X commanded a catechism to be written for the Diocese of Rome. The catechism, completed around 1905, is called the Compendium of Christian Doctrine. Because Pope Pius X gave his approval for this catechism to be written, it is also known as the “Catechism of Pope Pius X”.
SPERAY REPLIES: I asked where’s the info? You didn’t give me what I asked for? The catechism says he actually penned it.
But did he pen every single line of it, or even one line of it? No, no more than the popes of Trent had anything to do with the WRITING and ACTUAL COMPOSITION of the Roman Catechism.
SPERAY REPLIES: We already know that St. Charles Borromeo edited it and it was approved and commended over and over and over again by many popes. Are you going to tell me that they didn’t read it? They missed the great heresy only for the Dimond’s to discover it? LOL
#The Catechism of Trent was promulgated by Pope ST. Pius V and he repeatedly commended it.#
Yes, PROMULGATED by him, but not WRITTEN by him.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOW YOU’RE ADMITTING THAT POPE ST. PIUS V PROMULGATED A FORMAL HERESY. LOL! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
#Pope Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it… 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. Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter of September 8, 1899, to the Bishops and clergy of France, recommended it because of “exactness of its doctrine…”#
Yes, in case you haven’t noticed already, i have nothing against the Catechism of Trent, so i dont know why you are bringing this up.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh yes you do, because it’s telling us that man can be saved without baptism.
#SPERAY REPLIES: No it’s not. That’s a silly opinion that comes from 2 men that were born in the 1970′s. #
Not just from them, let me tell you. And it’s clear it is clear heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, just from them. Even Fr. Feeney believed in Baptism of Desire with a different twist.
It says, “If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”
This says nothing of the Trinity and the Incarnation and it is in fact what Pope Pius IX and others condemned, viz., that people can be saved outside the Church “so long as morality is maintained” and even by “following the dictates of their conscience.”
SPERAY REPLIES: In the external forum, it would appear that people are saved outside of the Church, but in the internal forum which we don’t see, God saves them and brings them inside of the Church. Please read: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/fr-michael-muller-c-s-s-r-taught-the-doctrine-of-baptism-of-desire/
The Dimonds actually use Fr. Muller to teach against BOD, when in fact, he totally believed and taught it in his own catechism. LOL.
Also, this is the english version and even in the english version it got even more heretical, to the point of not even mentioning baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S NOT HERETICAL!
#SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. I’ve been clear about that in past comments and have explained it clearly how it does not.#
You have not been clear at all and i am beginning to see that you really do contradict yourself. This Catechism says nothing about explicit faith and belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, which you claim to believe is absolutely necessary, and yet you say it is not heretical at all and that it’s all in harmony.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S IMPLIED! WHERE’S MY CONTRADICTION? You have to show where’s the contradiction.
#SPERAY REPLIES: They aren’t contradictions at all. You’re not getting it.#
Oh, that. Yes this is such a complicated issue comparable to calculus that im just too stupid to understand it.
SPERAY REPLIES: I wouldn’t say you’re stupid. You just don’t want to get it, so you close your mind to it. It really is very simple. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CALL ME AND SPEAK TO ME TO SAVE COUNTLESS HOURS TYPING?
#SPERAY REPLIES: As I’ve explained, and as Fr Michael Muller explains, at the moment of death, God infuses the faith, enlightens them, give the grace for perfect contrition, etc. so that a person who was invincibly ignorant but of goodwill, will no longer be ignorant and will be judged as a Catholic because he was infused the faith at death.#
And as i have already told you again and again, that is not what the people whom you claim believe in the dogma say and believe in. That is not what the Pius X Catechism says either. You’re either totally dishonest in attributing things to people and books which they clearly don’t say at all, or you’re the one who doesn’t get it and is under a fog because you can’t see something as clear as this.
Seriously, do you even READ?
SPERAY REPLIES: IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME, CALL THEM YOURSELF. THEY BELIEVE AS I TOLD YOU. IF SALVATION CAN BE HAD OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, THEN WHY DO WE NEED BOD AT ALL?????
Antonio the Popes did have something to do with those catechisms or else they wouldn’t have approved of them. This is the point. They cannot approve of or write heretical things, which you are saying is a heresy that is in those catechisms that teach BOD and Invincible ignorance. You admitted they had something to do with them, even if they didn’t write everything with pen
Antonio what do you think of the following:
SAINT EMERENTIANA: Those familiar with the traditional Breviary (dropped from the Novus Ordo “missals”) will know the story of this virgin and martyr. The idea that the Church would have her religious commemorate such a person who was – according to those who deny Baptism of Desire and Blood – on a yearly basis for some 1800 years – is to say the least “offensive to pious ears.” Let us quote the Breviary directly:
“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, WHILE STILL A CATECHUMEN, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.”
This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands. Some have argued that she was baptized – but such is absurd as she is both called a catechumen, and the Church states in her liturgy that she was “baptized in her own blood.”[4] This was taken from Rama Coomerswamy’s website
The Church Universally recognizes a Saint which was baptized in her blood, making her a member of the Church. How can you say the Church is wrong?
One can argue that she was baptized at the very end but the argument is meaningless since she was known for actually being a catechumen.
Ok we’re going to clear up something right now:
I do not oppose bod/bob, i have repeatedly said this. So why do you still say that i think they are heretical? Are you aware that i have said that i dont oppose them? I have already told you i believe in bod/bob as the Saints taught them, which is with explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
SPERAY REPLIES: OKAY THEN! THAT’S CLEAR. I’M GLAD TO HEAR THIS. SORRY IF I CONFUSED IT.
SPERAY REPLIES: I asked where’s the info? You didn’t give me what I asked for? The catechism says he actually penned it.
What i told you is all i’ve read. I saw no evidence for those claims but i believe the people who said so would not lie about it.
Does the original italian version say that the Pope himself wrote it? If that’t the case, then i will believe it.
SPERAY REPLIES: We already know that St. Charles Borromeo edited it and it was approved and commended over and over and over again by many popes. Are you going to tell me that they didn’t read it? They missed the great heresy only for the Dimond’s to discover it? LOL
I already said i don’t believe bod is a heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOW YOU’RE ADMITTING THAT POPE ST. PIUS V PROMULGATED A FORMAL HERESY. LOL! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
I already answered this.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh yes you do, because it’s telling us that man can be saved without baptism.
Ditto.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S NOT HERETICAL!
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S IMPLIED! WHERE’S MY CONTRADICTION? You have to show where’s the contradiction.
Here’s the thing: are you saying that all the ones who teach implicit bod imply that there has to be explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation?
SPERAY REPLIES: I wouldn’t say you’re stupid. You just don’t want to get it, so you close your mind to it. It really is very simple. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CALL ME AND SPEAK TO ME TO SAVE COUNTLESS HOURS TYPING?
That’s not the case; the case is that i want to know if it is how i said above.
SPERAY REPLIES: IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME, CALL THEM YOURSELF. THEY BELIEVE AS I TOLD YOU. IF SALVATION CAN BE HAD OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, THEN WHY DO WE NEED BOD AT ALL?????
Sure give me Cekada’s and Sanborn’s number if you have it, i’ll certainly call them.
Martin,
I just made it clear that i do not reject bod/bob and that i do not think they are heretical.
The thing is, the Roman Catechism is talking about someone who already knows about the Faith and presumably wants to be a Catholic, i.e., there is explicit faith in the person, but these other people are talking about invincibly ignorant people dying in their ignorance and being saved nonetheless by a supposed implicit desire in something unknown.
THAT is my main concern: it is one thing to say that someone who is invincibly ignorant can be illuminated by God at the point of death and believe in the Trinity/Incarnation etc., I do not oppose that at all, but it is a whole other thing to say that someone who dies as an invincibly ignorant idolater, pagan, hindu etc. without any explicit belief or knowledge in the Trinity/Incarnation can be saved, THAT is the issue.
The Pius X Catechism, Protocol 122/49 and so many other things appear to teach the latter and that is my concern.
I think we agree then Antonio.
You said, “it is one thing to say that someone who is invincibly ignorant can be illuminated by God at the point of death and believe in the Trinity/Incarnation etc., I do not oppose that at all, but it is a whole other thing to say that someone who dies as an invincibly ignorant idolater, pagan, hindu etc. without any explicit belief or knowledge in the Trinity/Incarnation can be saved, THAT is the issue.
The St. Pius X catechism explains how the person needs to be baptized or at least have implicit desire of it if he were outside the Church in order for that person in a certain way to be a member of the church. He didn’t say an idolater, pagan, etc. who dies invincibly ignorant could be saved through his ignorance.
Let us look at it again and we will both break it down.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Steve pretty much made his reply about Bp. Sanborn.
The way I understood Bp. Sanborn was that he was saying that they are indeed not united to the Catholic Church, but because of actual grace God could somehow through a mystery give that person if that person ever existed the necessary knowledge that they would need to know (the Catholic Faith, Trinity, etc.) and through good Faith and desire (of baptism) to it’s body as Sanborn says they could be united to the soul of the Church. He’s not saying they will be saved through their ignorance. This would seem to agree with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X where he says that if a person had at least implicit desire of Baptism and was outside the Church, that person could be saved.
If I’m wrong I’ll admit it, but this is how I understand it
You should show Dimond this: http://romehasspoken.com/uploads/Dimond_and_La_Salette-1.pdf
And this: http://romehasspoken.com/uploads/Communicatio_in_Sacris_Pseudo_Traditionalists_1.pdf
I listened to the debate today and I am so upset. Peter Diamond is so ridiculous! He kept interrupting Steve!! Steve did a pretty good job for being interrupted so much. Peter kept saying Steve is dishonest but really he is the one that is dishonest. Peter kept trying to make Steve say he lost the debate when Steve didn’t even get to say anything yet. I do think Steve was unprepared and way to nice to Peter. Steve quit being Mr. Nice guy. Show them who is boss and make sure in your next talk that you sound like a solider. What if your were nice to the enemy on the battle field? You would be in trouble. Br. Peter needs somebody to speak as loud as him. Steve you need to have quotes from Mckenna and Sanborn proving your point so that way they can’t use their lame attacks. Make sure Br. Peter doesn’t interrupt you or that you have a moderator or something and make sure that Brother Michael isn’t that moderator. Anyways, I thought you did pretty good despite your circumstances and that Br. Peter made it sound like you lost when he was doing everything he could from losing himself.
This is what Sanborn says:
“The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of providence and predestination, they are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to a justifying grace, which urges them to various justifying acts, on condition of invincible ignorance of their error.”
This is what I’m talking about. This is from his work Communion.
Do you see any mention of the Trinity and the Incarnation here? Do you see any mention of them putting off their ignorance and believeing in Christ?
SPERAY REPLIES: He is talking about implicit desire as they live. He’s not saying they have sanctifying grace. Justifying grace is actual grace and responding to it would be good demonstrating such a person is responding to God. HE’S NOT SAYING THEY WILL DIE IN THE INTERNAL FORUM AS NON-CATHOLICS! You can’t deduce that he’s saying they are dying in the internal forum as non-catholics by his statement. In the external forum, such persons will appear to die outside of the Church, but God will bring them inside the Church.
This is from Ladislaus, a post at cathinfo.com:
implicit BoD (of the neo-Pelagians): I am doing my duty as an Aztec priest in performing human sacrifice. By following my conscience sincerely, I am implicitly desiring to join the Church and therefore to be baptized.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO! It’s not in following his false religion at all. Look at the quote you gave again. Justifying grace wouldn’t give a person a good conscience to do human sacrifice. Sanborn said justifying acts, and human sacrifice wouldn’t be a justifying act. It would be something else like having mercy, forgiveness, and whatever good acts that would come from grace. It’s not about following a false religion at all. It’s about interior motives that only God sees and the response to God’s grace. I gave the example of St. Paul killing Christians. He was doing the wrong thing and Our Lord was not pleased in what he was doing, but God saw the goodwill in St. Paul’s heart and enlightened him and ultimately saving him. God wouldn’t be pleased in pagans offering human sacrifice, but He would be pleased with a good disposition of the heart and the willingness to do God’s will if it were made known to him. The false religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Does this make sense?
Greetings,
Since “implicit desire” is nothing other than something which is “not spoken, but understood” we must apply this to the words of Bishop Sanborn.
Justifying grace is sanctifying grace or also called habitual, it is not actual grace as stated. Now since the ordering of things are to produce an effect which is salvation, it follows in the perfect order of God that anyone who is justified or in a state of grace must have Divine faith in the essential truths.
So it could be said that the Bishop speaks implicitly, that is to say, “not spoken” (no mention of putting off their ignorance), but “understood”, in so much as to be in a state of grace or justified the required articles of faith are known and believed.
In regard to those who are drawn, “They all shall be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me” John: 6
—First of all, this has NOTHING to do with baptism of desire. Pius IX does not even use the term, nor says he is referring to it, nor is there any mention about baptism at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: He definitely implies it because the context is life after death and he’s explaining how someone can get to heaven without living a Catholic life on earth.—
Was Bishop George Hay a Feeneyite?
SPERAY REPLIES: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Bp Hay teaches BOD in his catechism on pp 287-288. Besides, Feeney lived long after Bp Hay and it was Fr. Feeney who first came up with his wacky theory that man can be justified and not go to heaven. Feeneyites generally don’t follow Feeney’s position.
—SPERAY REPLIES: They got part of it right except the last 5 words. When does it happen? Remember that Pope Pius IX also stated in Singulari Quidem “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” The Dimond’s deny he wrote this because they must say that he’s a heretic and antipope if they were honest enough to admit he wrote it. Anyway, the fact is we already have the Roman Catechism that spells it out. Pope Pius IX understood and believe BOD as I’ve explained it.
So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the good‐willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized.
SPERAY REPLIES: The clear Scripture and traditional meaning was for ordinary circumstances. Pope Pius IX was speaking about extraordinary circumstances.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sorry, but this doesn’t work for 2 reasons. First, Pope Pius would have been as clear and just stated it thus. He didn’t do so, because he didn’t mean it the way you’re wanting to interpret it. Second: You would have to say that QCM is very ambiguous at best which means it would have to be rendered heretical.—
IF you were to believe in what Pius IX wrote there as it stands, then he would have been teaching that invincible ignorance IS SALVIFIC, and totally rejecting there has to be even an implicit desire/faith, and it would have been totally heretical even for you, there’s no way around that.
SPERAY REPLIES: He’s not saying they are saved BECAUSE of invincible ignorance, but that the ignorance is an excuse that such persons aren’t condemned for rejecting the faith, since they have not rejected what they have not heard. If they follow the natural law and whatever in them pleased God, He will save them because they are excused. Again Pope Pius IX wrote in Singulari Quidem, On the Church in Austria Encyclical, March 17, 1856, “[17] Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”
So let me get this straight. If we say that what Pius IX meant/implied was just what St. Thomas and all the other Saints and good writers on the subject like Bishop Hay teach, namely, that, someone who is in invincible ignorance will be enlightened even supernaturally by God if they really are of good will etc., which is what the “operating power of divine light and grace” would be, then THAT is going overboard/a stretch, but when Sanborn & co. specifically say that pagans and idolaters dying as pagans and idolaters in their ignorance will be saved without even explicit true belief in Jesus Christ and His Church, THEN we are to imply they meant explicit belief/putting off their ignorance/etc. and it’s totally wrong they really taught what they taught?
SPERAY REPLIES: There no contradiction since those very people Pope Pius IX is addressing could be the very type of people Sanborn is mentioning.
The fact is, Stepanich, the CMRI, Sanborn, Cekada and all the rest like them, as far as i know, have never said that nor made that clear, and the very way in which they wrote what they said certainly doesn’t give any grounds to say or conclude “oh they implied explicit belief in everything.” Come on.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ask them yourself. That’s all I can say.
This is from the Dimonds website, so whether it is true or not, i don’t know, but i wouldn’t be surprised if it were from what i have read and heard:
—-Bishop Sanborn told someone we know named Keith McKay that a Christ-hating Jew could possibly be saved without the Catholic Faith. But this shouldn’t really surprise people, considering what Sanborn says above about pagans and idolaters being saved. Another friend of ours named Matt L. told us the following:
“I spoke to Bishop Sanborn in December 2004. And I asked him does a Jew who is taught to denounce Christ have a better chance to go to heaven than a so-called ‘Feeneyite.’ His response was ‘yes.’”—-
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t go by hearsay. Ask them yourself. Get it from the horse’s mouth.
Antonio you said, Another friend of ours named Matt L. told us the following:
“I spoke to Bishop Sanborn in December 2004. And I asked him does a Jew who is taught to denounce Christ have a better chance to go to heaven than a so-called ‘Feeneyite.’ His response was ‘yes.’”—-
Did he say dieing as a Jew in the Jewish religion? NO, he said he has a better chance to get to heaven, which means something like convert from their position and embrace the Catholic Faith. A Jew in that sense would have a better chance because a Feenyite is not only denying a teaching of the Church, but many are unlikely to change their mind about it because of pride, which is a shame.
Martin,
I suppose that, to end all disputes and speculation about what they may or may not have meant, the best thing would be to actually call and speak to these people, and bluntly ask them to clarify themselves, and even record the conversation to have it on the record.
Yes, i had thought about the possibility that he meant a Jew being converted, but the question was, “does a Jew who is taught to denounce Christ have a better chance to go to heaven than a so-called ‘Feeneyite.’, NOT “does a Christ-denouncing Jew have a better chance of being CONVERTED”, so you saying “he said he has a better chance to get to heaven, which means something like convert from their position and embrace the Catholic Faith” is speculation on your part and, taking into consideration all the other things he’s said on the subject, it’s possible he really just meant a Jew dying as a Jew.
I wanted to emphasize something i had forgotten: Steve says that since Pope Pius IX didn’t clearly say what the Dimonds and others and I think he was implying concerning invincible ignorance, namely, just what St. Thomas says about it, Steve claims that then we would have to say that what the Pope said was “ambiguous at best which means it would have to be rendered heretical”, WELL THEN, is not what Sanborn & co. say EVEN MORE AMBIGUOUS, since they go so far as to say that pagans, idolaters etc. are saved “in spite of their paganism and idolatry etc.” and therefore it would have to be “rendered heretical”?
Talk about a double standard!
Anyways, when is the next debate with the Dimonds coming up?
If you do have another debate, you should call him Bob or Robert, and not Peter or “Brother Peter”!
SPERAY REPLIES: We are working on a time right now. I can’t wait either. This is fun stuff!
###SPERAY REPLIES: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Bp Hay teaches BOD in his catechism on pp 287-288. Besides, Feeney lived long after Bp Hay and it was Fr. Feeney who first came up with his wacky theory that man can be justified and not go to heaven. Feeneyites generally don’t follow Feeney’s position.###
I have already made it clear that i don’t reject the baptisms, and when i asked if he was a Feeneyite, i meant if he believed someone can be saved by implicit faith or without true knowledge in Jesus and His Church and all that He teaches, and he emphatically says NO.
SPERAY REPLIES: I answered your question. IMPLICIT FAITH IS THE DESIRING ASPECT BY WHICH GOD WILL INFUSE THE WHOLE FAITH SO THAT A PERSON HAS EXPLICIT FAITH. I’ve already explained this point. IT’S NOT THE IMPLICIT DESIRE/FAITH THAT SAVES, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE ASPECTS BY WHICH PLEASES GOD TO MAKE SURE THE PERSON HAS EXPLICIT FAITH AT DEATH.
Yes that being justified but not being able to be saved thing sure sounds weird.
###SPERAY REPLIES: The clear Scripture and traditional meaning was for ordinary circumstances. Pope Pius IX was speaking about extraordinary circumstances.###
Ok now YOU are the one putting limits to God’s power. Amazing!
SPERAY REPLIES: HOW? The Roman Catechism has already taught that John 3:5 applies ordinarily, but not extraordinarily.
I say (along with St. Thomas and Bishop Hay and so many Saints etc.): No, you cannot be saved at all without explicit belief in Jesus and the Trinity and being totally enlightened of the truth of the Faith etc.,
SPERAY REPLIES: Implicit faith is the absolute minimum that you need for God to infuse the faith so that you aren’t ignorant anymore. I’ve stated over and over again, that you must believe in Christ, the Faith, and be sincerely sorry for your sins. That’s not implicit faith. That’s explicit faith.
and God will even make a miracle for this to happen for anyone without any ordinary means, if he is good willed etc., but YOU say, no, such a thing is too much to ask of God; you say “If they follow the natural law and whatever in them pleased God, He will save them because they are excused.”
SPERAY REPLIES: They are excused for not knowing the faith AS THEY LIVED. GOD will save such a person, but it happens at death when God infuses the faith. Am I becoming clear now?
You don’t make any mention of them explicitly becoming Catholics, believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation, etc. You say “God will save them in their ignorance.”
SPERAY REPLIES: YES I DO!!! That happens at death when God performs the miracle.
You think it’s more amazing for God to “save” someone totally ignorant of the Faith, thereby breaking His own laws and contradicting Himself, instead of performing MIRACLES so that the person will be fully enlightened and come to the knowledge of Jesus and the Trinity?
That’s just sick.
SPERAY REPLIES: LOL, THAT WOULD BE SICK IF THAT’S THE CASE, BUT IT’S NOT. The miracle is God infusing the faith to the poor ignorant man who had implicit desire/faith at death so that the poor ignorant soul is no longer poor and ignorant, but rich with the Faith.
Ok, if it is as you say here, then i do agree with you, because with what you just said, that person would no longer die ignorant of the Faith.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s right! I made that abundantly clear in the debate. I repeated it over and over.
But if you have believed in that all along, then why do you say what the Dimonds said about Pius IX (and what Fr. Mueller says himself, i believe) is wrong and that it is not implied etc., that they will be enlightened supernaturally and that is what the “operating power of divine light and grace” is if supposedly you believe in that?
SPERAY REPLIES: Fr. Muller believed precisely as I’ve explained. What’s implied is that persons who live following the natural law and who are not living the Catholic faith, they can saved because God will take care of them by giving them what is needed at death, viz. the Faith and Repentance. The Dimonds kept trying to say that the only conversions are prior to death and reject the idea that God can save anyone without the sacrament of baptism. They also reject that God will enlighten the (good intentioned) ignorant soul at death.
This is the same thing St. Leonard of Port Maurice says in the Little Number of those who are Saved:
“Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid.”
That is the exact same thing Bishop Hay says would happen with all those who are in invincible ignorance, should they be of good will, follow the natural law etc.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have no problem with St. Leonard’s statement. I believe it’s generally true. However, we are talking about those whom God could save at death. He can do what He wants. Bp Hay, answers this question: Why do you say ordinary possibility of salvation? Is there any reason to suppose that God has reserved any extraordinary means of salvation for some who are not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by the true faith? Answer: No doubt, it is absolutely speaking possible for God to save men by any means he pleases…
And the exact same thing St.Thomas Aquinas says.
Since this appears to have ben well-known and believed in, and since the question of invincible ignorance wasn’t new at all when Pope Pius IX addressed it, why do you object when i say that he was just implying this same thing since, as i said, this was nothing new?
SPERAY REPLIES: It wasn’t new for sure. Theologians were talking about it when Columbus came to America and found all these people who never heard of Christ.
And lastly, the Roman Catechism is not a good source of support for BOD since it is contradicted in it:
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s the perfect source because it so clear and it has been approved over and over again by popes and synods. IT’S NOT CONTRADICTED AT ALL! The Jesus Seminar look at Scripture and say “look at all those contradictions.” We’re not to see apparent contradiction and conclude actual contradictions. You must look closely at what is being said and how it applies. If you simply read the following statements with the understanding of ordinary circumstances and conditions as opposed to extraordinary circumstances and conditions, it fits just fine.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the
Sacraments, p. 154: “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
SPERAY REPLIES: Baptism is absolutely necessary under ordinary circumstances. You can’t reject or opt out of baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176‐177: “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 LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
SPERAY REPLIES: UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES THIS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IT DOESN’T APPLY TO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
SPERAY REPLIES: NO ONE IS SAYING OTHERWISE. IT DOESN’T APPLY TO BOD FOR THOSE WHOM WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
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 all for salvation.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely necessary for salvation under normal circumstances. It’s not referring to the extraordinary circumstances.
When i was new to all this, and didn’t really know much, a dishonest sedevacantist defender of BOD kept hammering to me that “the Roman Catechism teaches BOD and if you don’t believe in it you call the Catechism heretical.”
SPERAY REPLIES: If you reject that God can save someone without water baptism because of Trent’s canons, etc., then you would have to call the catechism heretical for sure, because the RC is perfectly clear that a person can be saved without the sacrament.
But reading all the quotes i just posted from the very own Catechism, how can you possibly say we all have to hold it teaches BOD just because it said so in that ONE SENTENCE but then that is contradicted by all that? Does that one sentence have more weight than all those passages excluding the idea of BOD?
SPERAY REPLIES: IT DOESN’T DO SO WITH JUST ONE SENTENCE, BUT TWO WHOLE PARAGRAPHS EXPLAINING WHY! IT’S VERY CLEAR THAT THE RC IS TEACHING WITH THE NOTION THAT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES THIS AND THAT ARE TRUE, BUT UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SCENARIO. If you just read it the way I just explained there’s no need to say “look at the contradiction with that sentence (paragraphs) with all the other statements.”
How can you even believe in BOD with all those quotes?
SPERAY REPLIES: I just explained why. How can you even reject BOD when it’s so simple just to accept all the statements of the RC with the understanding between ordinary vs extraordinary circumstances? Lastly, Pope Gregory XIII so highly esteemed the RC that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. Lo and behold, the 1917 Code of Canon law, Canon 1239.2 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.” The RC is reflected in the Law of the Church itself! Is the law heretical, too? According to the Dimond brothers it is. Think about the implications when you reject the law of the Church. Where would that place a person?
###SPERAY REPLIES: That’s right! I made that abundantly clear in the debate. I repeated it over and over.###
You did, sometimes.
###The Dimonds kept trying to say that the only conversions are prior to death…They also reject that God will enlighten the (good intentioned) ignorant soul at death.###
But then sometimes you also came up with this.
Now here’s the thing: i just listened to the whole debate again. What exactly did you mean with the whole “at death” thing? The Dimonds most certainly believe that anyone can be converted/enlightened AT DEATH, when someone is about to die, they do not “reject that God will enlighten the (good intentioned) ignorant soul at death”, they made that perfectly clear in the debate, and EVERYONE believes that can happen, it’s called a “deathbed conversion”, so why do you say they don’t believe in that?
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT TALKING ABOUT A DEATHBED CONVERSION IN THE SENSE THAT WE SEE THE PERSON WANTING A PRIEST OR SOMETHING AND GETTING BAPTIZED. TALKING ABOUT AT DEATH IN A WAY THAT WE DON’T SEE WITH NO BAPTISM.
You should clear what you mean with this whole thing. Do you mean that someone actually DIES AND LEAVES THIS WORLD, and THEN God enlightens them and gives them a second chance? Is that what you’re saying?
SPERAY REPLIES: I DIDN’T SAY LEAVE THIS WORLD. I SAID AT DEATH IN A MYSTERY WE DON’T UNDERSTAND. HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING THAT WE DON’T UNDERSTAND?
###SPERAY REPLIES: I have no problem with St. Leonard’s statement. I believe it’s generally true. However, we are talking about those whom God could save at death. He can do what He wants.###
Here we go again. Clear up once and for all what do you mean with “at death.”
SPERAY REPLIES: THE TIME FRAME FROM THE MOMENT YOU’RE HEART STOPS BEATING TO THE TIME YOUR SOUL ACTUALLY LEAVES THE BODY AND IS JUDGED. THAT’S THE BEST I CAN DO. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR THE SOUL TO LEAVE THE BODY AT DEATH? DOES IT HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SOUL LEAVES THE BODY? IS THERE A TIME BETWEEN THE SOUL LEAVING THE BODY AND JUDGMENT? DOES IT ALL HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE HEART STOPS? THESE THINGS I DON’T HAVE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO, BUT IT ALL HAPPENS SOME TIME AROUND THESE MOMENTS.
We already said people can be enlightened BEFORE THEY ARE ABOUT TO DIE/IN THEIR LAST MOMENTS, so why are you making a distinction?
SPERAY REPLIES: The distinctions are external (which we see) and internal (which we don’t see).
###SPERAY REPLIES: Bp Hay, answers this question: Why do you say ordinary possibility of salvation? Is there any reason to suppose that God has reserved any extraordinary means of salvation for some who are not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by the true faith? Answer: No doubt, it is absolutely speaking possible for God to save men by any means he pleases…###
I can’t believe you just did that. You totally twisted what Bp. Hay said! You only half-quoted the first sentence and left out all the rest!!!
SPERAY REPLIES: I DIDN’T TWIST A THING! The rest of the statement doesn’t conflict one iota with what I’m saying.
Here’s what the Bishop ACTUALLY WENT ON TO SAY: “But what God can do in this respect IS NOTHING TO OUR PURPOSE: the great question is WHAT HE HAS DONE. Now, we see from the whole tenor of revelation that GOD HAS APPOINTED TRUE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, AND THE BEING A MEMBER OF HIS CHURCH, AS CONDITIONS OF SALVATION; THAT HE HAS APPOINTED THEM AS ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS, SO THAT NONE WILL OR CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT THEM; THAT THE WORD OF GOD POINTS OUT NO OTHER POSSIBLE MEANS; that whatever extraordinary means He may sometimes use to bring people to His Church, yet, according to what He has said in the above texts, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE HE CAN HAVE RESERVED ANY EXTRAORDINARY MEANS OF SALVATION FOR THOSE WHO LIVE AND DIE NOT JOINED IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF CHRIST BY TRUE FAITH, otherwise He would contradict Himself, which is impossible. ”
SPERAY REPLIES: EXACTLY! YOU CAN’T BE SAVED OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH! I’VE SAID IT FROM THE BEGINNING!
From all the foregoing, it is patently clear now that you actually DON’T really believe that someone who is invincibly ignorant in a false religion HAS to truly be enlightened and explicitly know of the Trinity and the Incarnation etc. before they die in order to be saved.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOW YOU’RE JUST PLAYING THE DIMOND ROLE AGAINST ME. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A BLATANT LIE!
What you REALLY believe is that God will somehow bypass His very own Law (“nothing is impossible for Him”) and save invincibly ignorant good intentioned people WITHOUT the Catholic Faith, and this you dare call a “mystery.”
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! READ WHAT I STATED OVER AND OVER! YOU’RE TOTALLY WASTING MY TIME NOW. “The miracle is God infusing the faith to the poor ignorant man who had implicit desire/faith at death so that the poor ignorant soul is no longer poor and ignorant, but rich with the Faith.”
Therefore, you really believe souls can be saved in false religions without the Catholic Faith.
SPERAY REPLIES: TOTAL LIE AND I’VE EXPLAINED IT A HUNDRED TIMES NOW. IS THIS REALLY PETER DIMOND WRITING TO ME?
###SPERAY REPLIES: If you simply read the following statements with the understanding of ordinary circumstances and conditions as opposed to extraordinary circumstances and conditions, it fits just fine.
SPERAY REPLIES: Baptism is absolutely necessary under ordinary circumstances. You can’t reject or opt out of baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES THIS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IT DOESN’T APPLY TO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO ONE IS SAYING OTHERWISE. IT DOESN’T APPLY TO BOD FOR THOSE WHOM WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely necessary for salvation under normal circumstances. It’s not referring to the extraordinary circumstances.###
Well, tough, the Catechism doesn’t make any distinction, that’s only your opinion, and besides, it uses very clear language: “The UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of Baptism…THE LAW OF BAPTISM…EXTENDS TO ALL, so that UNLESS a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5)…obligatory ON ALL WHO WERE TO BE SAVED…a Sacrament which is NECESSARY TO ALL FOR SALVATION…”
SPERAY REPLIES: IT GAVE THE EXCEPTION PARAGRAPHS. YOU LOSE THIS ONE! AND THEN YOU HAVE THE LAW OF THE CHURCH THAT SAYS WHAT THE CATECHISM SAYS.
There is nothing in the Catechism at all to suggest it was “speaking only about ordinary circumstances”, as you would have us believe. Quite the opposite: absolute, universal and non-excepting language is used.
SPERAY REPLIES: IS THIS PETER DIMOND?
###SPERAY REPLIES: How can you even reject BOD…with the understanding between ordinary vs extraordinary circumstances?###
Because of the plain fact that it does NOT make any such distinction but instead uses absolute and universal language.
SPERAY REPLIES: IT GIVES THE EXCEPTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN’T BE BAPTIZED. THEREFORE, IT’S IMPLIED WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You made up this whole “understanding between ordinary vs extraordinary circumstances” because anyone can see it’s not there.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU REFUSE TO SEE THE OBVIOUS LIKE THE NOVUS ORDIANS WHO DON’T WANT TO SEE ROME’S APOSTASY.
###SPERAY REPLIES: Lastly, Pope Gregory XIII so highly esteemed the RC that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. Lo and behold, the 1917 Code of Canon law, Canon 1239.2 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.” The RC is reflected in the Law of the Church itself! Is the law heretical, too? According to the Dimond brothers it is. Think about the implications when you reject the law of the Church. Where would that place a person? ###
And yet again, you forget i made it clear i don’t believe BOD is heretical.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT!
The 1917 CIC also introduced giving christian burials to catechumens (against the entire tradition of the Church) and also said you can assist at non-Catholic funerals and even religious services. Do you agree with the latter?
SPERAY REPLIES: I AGREE WITH THE LAW AND IF YOU REJECT ANY PORTION OF IT, THEN YOU HAVE PUT YOURSELF ABOVE THE CHURCH AND IN THE REALM OF ANTICHRIST! READ THE FOLLOWING: 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1258 � 1. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.
� 2. A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop.
Commentary:
This is the so-called communicatio in sacris active cum acatholicis.The reason why the Church has always forbidden such participation in the religious services of non-Catholics is the intimate conviction that she herself is the only true Church of Christ.
Secondary reasons for this prohibition are: the quasi-approbation of non-Catholic worship, which lies in a Catholic’s participation therein and which at the same time is an external profession of faith.
The other reason is scandal, which may be given to Catholics who see the mixture of worship and the deference paid to non-Catholic ministers and functions.
Finally there is the danger of perversion, or of gradually increasing religious indifference when the faithful freely and indiscriminately participate in heretical religious services.
Even the simulation of false religion is incompatible with the purity of the Catholic faith. (S.O., Aug. 28, 1780; S.C.P.F., 1729 [Coll. nn. 546, 311]. (Rev. P. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, Volume VI, Administrative Law, Canon 1258, pp. 192-193; B. Herder Book Company, Imprimatur by John J. Glennon, Archbishop of Saint Louis, Monday, November 22, 1920; emphasis added).
And finally, having listened to the debate again, it’s clear that the whole “internal/external forum” distinction you were making is just meaningless and it even got outrageous with the whole Hitchens part, because what you simply had to say was: If someone appears to be in clear mortal sin and appears to clearly be a non-Catholic, yes that person would be regarded to be in the state of damnation, and if anyone dies as a non-Catholic, yes he will go to Hell. All that “internal/external forum” mumbo-jumbo is pointless and unnecessary.
SPERAY REPLIES: I DID SAY IT OVER AND OVER AND I MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR. I SAID THAT IF YOU DIE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH YOU GO TO HELL. HOW MUCH MORE CLEARER DID I NEED TO BE? THE DIMONDS KEPT INTERRUPTING ME, TOO!
The same Bp. Hay again also puts to rest the whole “internal forum” mess you made:
###Q. 27. But suppose a person live in a false religion, and die without being reunited to the Communion of the Church of Christ, can it be said of such a one that he is certainly lost?
A. I must here put another question. Suppose a great sinner continues to live in his sins, and dies without any appearance of repentance, could you say of such a one that he is certainly lost? Certainly not; because no man knows, or can know, what may have passed between God and his soul in his last moments; all that can be said is, that if he has actually died without repentance, he certainly is lost; but if God, of His infinite goodness, has given him the grace of a perfect repentance, and he has corresponded on his part with so great a favor, he will be saved. In like manner, suppose a person living in false religion dies without giving any sign of embracing the True Faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say of such a one with certainty that he is lost; all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case: if he has actually died as he lived, separated from the True Church of Christ, and without the True Faith of Christ, he cannot be saved. But if God, of His great mercy, has given him in his last moments light and grace to see and embrace the True Faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires, he will be saved. Now, as no man knows, or can know, what may have passed in the soul of either the one or the other at their last moments, so no man can pronounce of either that he is lost with certainty.###
SPERAY REPLIES: I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. IS IT BECAUSE BP HAYS SAYS IT THAT YOU NOW BELIEVE IT?
So it’s quite clear that this is the way it is and needs no more comments, and that it has nothing to do at all with the whole discussion, which is why, as i said, you certainly are giving the impression that you do believe that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith “by a mystery we don’t see” by mixing things up.
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT BP HAY IS SAYING IS A MYSTERY. I’VE NOT MIXED ANYTHING UP. I EVEN EXPLAIN WHAT I MEANT BY MYSTERY. AS FR. MULLER STATED “we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.” There is a time frame at death that we don’t understand. It’s a mystery.
Clear yourself up once and for all.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve been clear from the get go. I’ve not contradicted myself one iota.
One thing I would like to say for those who deny that Pope St. Pius X wrote his catechism is how do you know he didn’t write the book when the book itself says he did? Are the book a lie for saying that he wrote it?
Another question I would like to ask is why would somebody name a catechism after himself and have others write it for him? For the sake of argument let’s say a person did let others write it in his name why would somebody especially a pope allow somebody to teach something that’s contrary to the church in his own name?
Makes no sense to me. I think the only way out of this is to say he didn’t write it and that he didn’t have anything to do with it etc. because that is the only answer to get out of this, but the problem is that it is ridiculous and dishonest. I have no respect for people who make false assertions and vain attempts to make it look like they are right.
Here is a *google translation* of the letter of Pius X to Cardinal Respighi, in which he approved the Catechism.
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PIUS X
TO CARDINAL PETER RESPIGHI,
VICAR OF ROME,
WHICH IS APPROVED BY
THE CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
FOR THE DIOCESE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL PROVINCE
OF ROME
Your Eminence,
Since the beginning of Our Pontificate We addressed the utmost care to religious instruction of the Christian people, and particularly children, convinced that most of the ills that afflict the Church come from ignorance of its doctrine and its laws. The enemies of it condemn cursing what ignorant, and many of ‘his children, sore knowing them, they live as if they were not. So often insisted on the necessity sum in teaching the catechism, and promovemmo everywhere, according to our power, and with the Encyclical Letters Unripe nimis and with the provisions concerning the catechism in parishes, and with the approval and encouragement at conferences catechetical and schools of religion, both by introducing here in Rome, the text of the Catechism used for some time in some great ecclesiastical provinces of Italy.
However with the passage of the years, so much on account of the new difficulties insidiously that comes in to any teaching of Christian doctrine in schools, where s’impartiva for centuries, as also for his provident anticipation, as we wanted, the first Holy Communion, and other reasons, since there was expressed a desire for a Catechism enough, it was much shorter and more suited to today’s needs, We we agreed that there was less ancient Catechism in a new, very small, which we examined ourselves and wanted were also examined from many of our brother bishops of Italy, so that we express their opinion in general, and obtained with regard to particular, according to their knowledge and experience, the modifications to be introduced.
They had a favorable appreciation almost unanimous, with quite a few valuable comments that we ordered were duly taken into account, there seems not to have to delay more than a text replacement for various reasons recognized appropriate, confident that it will, with the blessing of the Lord, will return much more comfortable and equally, if not more beneficial ancient, and because the volume of the book and the things to apprendersi, much diminished, not disanimerà the boys, already very aggravated from the school curriculum, and will allow teachers and catechists to do learn in full, and because you are, despite the brevity, as explained and emphasized the truth that nowadays, to the immense harm of souls and society, are no longer fought, or misunderstood, or forgotten.
Indeed we are confident that even adults, who want to, as it is sometimes supposed to live better and to educar family, revive the soul the fundamental knowledge upon which the spiritual life and Christian morality, are to find useful in this and appreciated this brief sum, very accurate even in the form, where they will meet with great simplicity exhibited the capital divine truths and the most effective Christian reflections.
This Catechism, therefore, and the Prime elements from it, for the convenience of little children, we are willing derive no word mutation, We, with the authority of this, we approve and prescribe the dioceses and ecclesiastical province of Rome, by prohibiting d ‘ henceforth in ‘catechetical instruction is followed other text. As for the other dioceses d ‘Italy, We just express the wish that the same text from. We and many Ordinaries deemed sufficient, is also adopted in them, because even cease the fatal confusion and discomfort that nowadays many feel in the frequent mutations of residence, finding new homes in vastly different formulas and texts that they hardly learn, while disuse confused and finally also forget what they already knew. And worse it is for the children, because nothing is so fatal to the success of a teaching as the continue them with a different text from that to which the young man is already more or less addicted.
And since the introduction of the text will encounter some difficulties adults, because it deviates from the previous year, on certain formulas, so, to remove inconveniences, we order that all major festive harvest, as well as in all classes of Christian doctrine, should be recited in the beginning, loudly, clearly, composedly, the first prayers and the main other formulas. In this way, after some time, without effort, everyone will have them learn, and s’introdurrà good and dear custom of common prayer and education, which has long been in place in many Italian dioceses, with no small edification and profit.
We strongly urge in the Lord all the catechists, now that the brevity of the text makes it easier to work with much greater care to want to explain and to penetrate into the souls of boys to Christian doctrine, the greater the need for a soda nowadays religious education for the spread of impiety and immorality. Always remember that the fruit of the Catechism depends almost entirely by their zeal and their intelligence and skill in make their teaching more mild and pleasing to the pupils.
We pray to God that, as today the enemies of the Faith, evermore growing in number and power, by all means go by propagating the error, so arise countless souls volonterose with great zeal to assist the pastors, teachers and Christian parents in teaching what is necessary as noble and fruitful of the Catechism.
With this wish impart to you, Your Eminence, and to those who will cooperators in this holy ministry, the apostolic blessing.
From the Vatican, 18 October 1912.
PIUS PP. X.
Link to the original: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/documents/hf_p-x_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html
Thank you RJS. This is a good confirmation that Pope St. Pius X promulgated his catechism.
###SPERAY REPLIES: NOT TALKING ABOUT A DEATHBED CONVERSION IN THE SENSE THAT WE SEE THE PERSON WANTING A PRIEST OR SOMETHING AND GETTING BAPTIZED. TALKING ABOUT AT DEATH IN A WAY THAT WE DON’T SEE WITH NO BAPTISM.
SPERAY REPLIES: I DIDN’T SAY LEAVE THIS WORLD. I SAID AT DEATH IN A MYSTERY WE DON’T UNDERSTAND. HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING THAT WE DON’T UNDERSTAND?
SPERAY REPLIES: THE TIME FRAME FROM THE MOMENT YOU’RE HEART STOPS BEATING TO THE TIME YOUR SOUL ACTUALLY LEAVES THE BODY AND IS JUDGED. THAT’S THE BEST I CAN DO. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR THE SOUL TO LEAVE THE BODY AT DEATH? DOES IT HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SOUL LEAVES THE BODY? IS THERE A TIME BETWEEN THE SOUL LEAVING THE BODY AND JUDGMENT? DOES IT ALL HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE HEART STOPS? THESE THINGS I DON’T HAVE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO, BUT IT ALL HAPPENS SOME TIME AROUND THESE MOMENTS.
SPERAY REPLIES: The distinctions are external (which we see) and internal (which we don’t see).###
Ok, so since this whole thing is something that NO ONE SEES, and therefore is irrelevant with the entire topic, because we only go by externals, and on top of that eveyone knows this can happen, why bring it up in the first place?
SPERAY REPLIES: Because Baptism of Desire is about the internal forum.
Everyone knows that someone can be in their last moments and then God may help/enlighten the person etc. and that they may convert/etc., but no one can see/verify such a thing, and that such a thing can happen is obvious.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT ACCORDING TO THE DIMOND BROTHERS. THEY REJECT IT TOTALLY!
So why did you raise this whole thing up in the debate if this is obvious? Why the whole internal/external forum thing?
SPERAY REPLIES: Because the statements by Sandborn, as I’ve explained, are to be understood from the correct perspective, something that you’ve not done.
###SPERAY REPLIES: I DIDN’T TWIST A THING! The rest of the statement doesn’t conflict one iota with what I’m saying.###
You bet you did.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO. YOU HAVE ONLY TWISTED MY CLEAR WORDS WHICH I’VE WRITTEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER. NOW YOU’RE WASTING MY TIME AS MOST PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO SUBMIT TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING.
The question was “Why do you say ordinary possibility of salvation? Is there any reason to suppose that God has reserved any extraordinary means of salvation for some who are not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by the true faith?”
It is asking if there is an “extraordinary” means of salvation for “those who are not joined in communion with the Church of Christ by the true Faith”, asking if someone can be saved “extraordinarily without the true Faith”,
SPERAY REPLIES: NOW YOU’RE TWISTING IT. IT’S ABOUT PERSPECTIVE. EXTRAORDINARILY WITHOUT THE TRUE FAITH FROM THE EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE. IN THE INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE, THOSE WITHOUT THE TRUE FAITH CAN RECEIVE IT.
and then you only half-quote the first sentence of the reply, “No doubt, it is absolutely speaking possible for God to save men by any means he pleases…”, which, when you leave it only half-quoted like that, gives the impression that someone can be saved without the true Faith by extraordinary means!
So, the way you left it, IS twisted, because it gives the impression i just said.
SPERAY REPLIES: I couldn’t be any clearer. Is this really Peter Dimond trying to aggravate me?
And regarding the non-Catholic thing in the Code, how can you possibly assist in any non-Catholic funeral/wedding/service/etc., even “materially”, and not give scandal?
SPERAY REPLIES: IF YOU DON’T KNOW, THEN YOU CAN’T BE HELPED. YOU’RE LOST! ALSO, YOU CAN’T REJECT THE LAW OF THE CHURCH AND THE FACT THAT YOU DO MEANS THAT YOU HAVE PLACED YOURSELF ABOVE THE CHURCH AND THE PONTIFF WHO SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED IT.
SPERAY REPLIES: Because Baptism of Desire is about the internal forum.
Not necessarily. It can also be manifested externally.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve been talking about the internal forum where God works. You were asking me when it all happens and said that we judge in the external forum, but that’s not the subject and never has been. What else are you wanting from me? I’ve answered everything on the subject.
SPERAY REPLIES: NOT ACCORDING TO THE DIMOND BROTHERS. THEY REJECT IT TOTALLY!
They just say that this whole thing isn’t BOD.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Dimond brothers reject that a person can be saved without the sacrament. Therefore, they hold that God will not save a person without the sacrament. The Catechism is clear that a person can be saved without the sacrament. This is what we all call Baptism of Desire.
SPERAY REPLIES: Because the statements by Sandborn, as I’ve explained, are to be understood from the correct perspective, something that you’ve not done.
No amout of twisting can reconcile what they say with the truth.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already explained it and done so very easily. Go back and read what I wrote.
And i’ve already said, what they say and believe is totally different afrom what you are saying.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. I even explained in the posts how to understand their statements.
Do i have to repeat that they are talking about people who DIE invincibly ignorant, practicing other religions, without any belief in the essential mysteries?
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s from our perspective (external forum), but in the internal forum God will take care that they are no longer invincibly ignorant, practicing false religions, etc. but will grant them the grace to know the faith, believe the mysteries, and be sorry for their sins. The quote is only giving one part of the equation.
You say they don’t believe in such a thing. Well then, like i said, give me their number and i will call them myself.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, you call them before saying anything else about it. You’ll have to look up the number yourself.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO. YOU HAVE ONLY TWISTED MY CLEAR WORDS WHICH I’VE WRITTEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER. NOW YOU’RE WASTING MY TIME AS MOST PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO SUBMIT TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING.
Oh sure.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t know why you’re making this so difficult. I’ve explained it very clearly.
SPERAY REPLIES: I couldn’t be any clearer. Is this really Peter Dimond trying to aggravate me?
Of course i’m not Bob Dimond.
SPERAY REPLIES: Just checking, because Dimond kept twisting my words, and tried to make me say something that I wasn’t saying.
SPERAY REPLIES: IF YOU DON’T KNOW, THEN YOU CAN’T BE HELPED. YOU’RE LOST! ALSO, YOU CAN’T REJECT THE LAW OF THE CHURCH AND THE FACT THAT YOU DO MEANS THAT YOU HAVE PLACED YOURSELF ABOVE THE CHURCH AND THE PONTIFF WHO SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED IT.
Hey don’t go judging my internal dispositions now. I may be in good faith in a mystery we dont understand, like Hitchens.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m judging from the external forum. Hitchens was lost, too. You both may be in good faith, and God will take care of it at your judgment and enlighten you. It appears that I’m failing miserably in getting you to see this stuff.
I’m not rejecting anything, i am asking for a clarification.
SPERAY REPLIES: If you don’t reject canon law 1258, then please explain how you might be able to answer your own question.
Again the law: A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop.
The Dimonds are Anti-Christs.. the willfully BLIND leading the BLIND!
I got called everything in the book by them as I’m sure you have experienced yourself
— BUT they refused to answer ONE simple “yes or no” question, since they could not have… and neither can their blind parrots
—“Is St. Alphonsus Liguori in hell?”
I could have added, and did,
—“Are Pope St. Pius X, Pope St. Pius V, St. Charles Borromeo, the English translators of the 1582 Rheims New Testament and 500 years of “parish priests” and the faithful that they taught BURNING IN HELL right now for “heretically and faithlessly rejecting defined Catholic Dogma?”
Obviously, they can’t say “yes”, because that means the Church FALLIBLY canonizes heretics, apostates and rejecters of Catholic Dogma—and obviously, they can’t say “no”, because that would mean God lovingly and warmly accepts those same “heretics, apostates, rejecters of Catholic Dogma, etc.”
Now, they just don’t respond at all…haha
They “nicely” call St. Alphonsus Liguori “mistaken and in serious error” and “not infallible” about his “misinterpretation” of the Council of Trent— but CMRI, Fr. Cekada, Fr. Stepanich, etc. are “faithless heretics, liars, apostates and anti-Catholic rejecters of Catholic Dogma and on the road to hell” for the exact same position! —
And their explanation of the Catechism of Trent is astonishingly dishonest and absurd…How anyone can read those arguments with a straight face is one of the wonders of the world!!!
I actually have never had an email exchange with anyone before that made me feel like I was talking to a real, live demon before I had the lack of judgement of emailing them..
And the fact that they go, incognito, to “una cum” masses of “undeclared heretics” is beyond hypocritical!! I can just picture them with their sneakers on, running in late, purposely missing the “mass”, just to quickly scarf down their “communion” and then hitting “confession” as they rush out again in a mad dash to avoid any contact with all of the “heretics who are on the road to hell”…haha…They probably cut in line, too!!
They are some of the most shockingly demonic people I know of..
Thanks for your site!
The Dimond Brothers do publish many good articles but they have a spirit of entitlement and pride. They quickly ban anyone from their comment section who disagrees with them. I attribute this to the “hot blood ” of youth. I believe they feel because they have sacrificed for their beliefs they deserve complete loyalty to their positions . They attack many but I believe that with age wisdom will come and they will be more concern with the beam in their own eyes then in someone else’s eye.