In the comment section, I wrote:
The Dimonds are jealous because they’re not the only ones out there promoting sedevacantism. They want to be THE go-to-guys, and they alone want to be right. They’ve been proven to be wrong on a central issue and can’t stand it.
They read my book which clearly debunks all their arguments and then some, and therefore, want to use me in one of their exhibitions (debates) so that I would lose all credibility. I wanted a gentleman’s bout in the ring, but they refused. They would only have a mud wrestling contest knowing where all the obstacles lie against me.
Also, notice very carefully that they’ve tried to censor me in every respect. They removed an old comment of mine from their website. They refused to use my full name and website in the first debate, because they know that people will find my writings that thoroughly expose their lies and misrepresentations on baptism of desire, and whatever else.
They’re blinded with pride and refuse to admit error on anything. They rashly judge everyone’s hearts and motives, they judge the Church’s laws and catechisms, papal encyclicals, decrees, etc. and they even claim through implication to know me better than I know myself on salvation.
They think they are gods. In fact, they’re antichrists of the highest level giving traditional Catholicism a very bad name. How many Catholics have refused to hear traditional Catholic teaching because of the nastiness of the Dimond’s? I personally know 3.
I should have taken the advice and teaching of all the Church fathers and had no communication with such non-Christians.
From here on out, I will block all future comments from them and any of their constituency.
After I posted this comment, Dimond commented again, which I sent to spam. I’ve interjected my own comments in bold into his following comment that I decided to post here.
Steve,
I recognize that you are frustrated, after having been exposed in our previous debate and after having backed out of the second debate because you are afraid that you will be exposed and refuted again.
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond continues this line of argumentation after I’ve clearly explained my position where I stood in the debate and why I won’t debate him again. He never refuted anything in the debate. You won’t be able to put on paper where I was refuted. If anybody thinks he can, please send it to me. I’m not frustrated at all, but Dimond is. Now he has to go to work and try to discredit me, and defend himself with long writings. It’s going to take a lot time and he knows that he must do it because his pride won’t allow him to admit any error. It’s funny really, how little nobody me is eating him up so bad. How long did it take him to write this comment to me? How much time does he spend thinking about me and how to destroy me? All his efforts against me has launched my website with tons of hits and personal emails; the very thing he didn’t want. I’m sure he won’t stop either, because he’s on the hot seat.
With regard to the previously agreed to second debate, you now say: ‘I WON’T DO IT!’
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond omits the rest of my comment that explains what I won’t do…
The only way to debate him in his controlled debates and appear to win, would be to stoop to his level and use his own tactics of nastiness, interruptions, ad hominums, etc.
I WON’T DO IT! IT’S CHILDISH.
CALL ME A COWARD IF YOU LIKE, BUT I LAID OUT SEVERAL REASONABLE WAYS TO DEBATE HIM AND HE REFUSED THEM ALL.
NOW THAT I’VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT THE LAST DAY OR SO, I REALIZE WE SHOULDN’T ENGAGE WITH SUCH NASTY, ARROGANT, AND PRIDEFUL PEOPLE IN ANY FORM, MUCH LESS A PUBLIC DEBATE.
THEY SHOULD BE IGNORED AND REJECTED.
I WAS WRONG FOR EVER HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
I’m giving you a final chance to change your mind. If we agree in advance to do it on some evening, perhaps this week, will you do it on the topic and with the parameters we discussed? We can go two minutes back and forth, with mature flexibility for questions here and there.
SPERAY REPLIES: Now Dimond is changing his position. He wouldn’t have it this way originally. Why the change now AFTER he’s read that I won’t engage in any communication with him? He knows that I won’t change my mind, and he can tell everybody that he gave me the fair chance and I coward out. Quite frankly, I would like to play his dirty game, but I’m taking the advice of several trustworthy people to ignore him totally.
If you don’t e-mail me back within the next day or two, with a clear statement that you will do the telephone debate, I will move forward with the conclusion that you have firmly and finally decided not to do it. But recognize this: this is your last chance to ever have a debate with me.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have firmly and finally decided never to have any communication with any person who acts so childishly and uncharitably as Dimond.
The only reason I’ve dedicated this attention to you is because you were a potential debate opponent with whom I could examine in detail various aspects of these issues in order to illustrate the true Catholic position and further refute and expose false positions which oppose it (e.g., BOD, etc.). Our previous debate demonstrated quite clearly that you are a heretic and a liar, who accepts the heresy that souls can be saved in any religion, who lies constantly, and who can hardly answer a simple question without contradicting himself.
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond holds that any person who accepts BOD is a heretic, anyone who defends it is a liar. I clearly explained that absolutely no one can be saved in any religion, but only in the Catholic religion. It’s precisely this garbage from Dimond that I refuse to have any communication with him. He’s the liar and any debate with him would only be waste of time, because he doesn’t listen.
Originally you also had no problem doing a series of debates with me. It was only after you were completely refuted in the first debate that your sentiment changed.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve proven this statement to be a lie. I was willing to go the distance, until he became unreasonable, made lying statements that I was shown to believe “that that souls can be saved in any religion” and his unbelievably rude phone call at 1 am.
Since you were already exposed in one debate, another debate with you is obviously not necessary.
SPERAY REPLIES: So why continue if it’s not necessary? Like I said, he wants to use his childish debate tactics where my side get glossed over with his many ad hominums.
So, this is your last chance. If you do not respond with the indication that you will do it, I will proceed without you and there will never be another debate between us. I will either cover the points of refutation on the specified debate topic in a video, audio or article, or I will completely refute your position as if I were having the debate, despite your failure to appear.
SPERAY REPLIES: And, of course, I will reply to each of his lies on paper or in a video myself.
With regard to your writings, which, in your delusion, you consider good, recognize this: if we had a written debate you would be refuted just as clearly as you were in the telephone debate, and that would be obvious to all good-willed people; but it’s a complete waste of my time when I can cover the issues and refute you in one or two hours in a telephone debate.
SPERAY REPLIES: If this were true, Dimond would have them in his book, but they aren’t there.
For instance, prior to our telephone debate on your heretical priests, we had already proven, in writing, that the aforementioned priests do in fact believe souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions. You, on the other hand, claimed, in writing, that they do not believe that. Your position, expressed in writing, was a joke. You were simply too blind to realize it.
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s a joke is Dimond’s explanation and failure to apply certain principles. Dimond is simply too blind with pride to realize it.
Our position, expressed in writing, was true, sound and convincing to any honest person.
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond calls anyone who disagrees with him a dishonest person. So his repeated assertion that “any honest person” or “a person of goodwill” will see his side is moot. He only accepts those who believes as he does. Everybody else is dishonest or bad willed.
In our telephone debate, we saw whose position, which had been expressed in writing, was true and held up. It was ours. The same would be true on every aspect of disagreement we have expressed on these matters in writing.
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond’s has quite a high opinion of himself. He’s never wrong about anything. He thinks that he’s infallible!
Your writing is filled with blatant errors, omissions, outrageous lies, and false arguments. I could literally write a book proving it. Your positions, and the objections for BOD, have already been crushed in writing. You are just too blind and dishonest to see it, and that fact would be quite obvious if we had another telephone debate.
SPERAY REPLIES: I will show, as I’ve already begun to do with a series of writings, that Dimond’s position is filled with blatant errors, many omissions, outrageous lies, and false arguments.
For example, just as I wrote about 50 pages refuting every page of an article by John Salza, or a long section on all of Fr. Laisney’s lies and false arguments, and many similar articles, I could do a similar article on your blog posts and book. I could expose in detail every one of your false arguments, lies, omissions, distortions, etc.
Here are just a few of the blatant lies in your writing (I could spend time covering many other errors and dissecting your false argumentation at length, if I wanted to). I will probably mention these in an audio on our site, in case you attempt to hide these facts on your blog.
On pages 17 and 45 of your book, you use the false translation ‘except through’ instead of ‘without’ with regard to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. You repeatedly used this blatantly false, and grammatically indefensible, translation of ‘sine’ (which means ‘without’, not ‘except through’) in order to give a false impression well after you knew it was a false translation. You used it despite knowing that it’s false. That’s a mortal sin and a deliberate attempt to falsify a papal document.
SPERAY REPLIES: I used the translation found in Denzinger. However, I used the “without” translation in canon 4 immediately before the decree in ch. 4. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE ARGUMENT! I even explained why Dimond’s argument using “without” doesn’t work at all. I didn’t need to give a false impression. Dimond is the one who gave the false impression that the canon and decree mean something besides how the Church has officially recognized it.
In your book you cite St. John Chrysostom, as if he’s teaching baptism of blood as a substitute for water baptism, when he’s referring to the martyrdom of an already baptized priest named Lucian. If you would have studied our writing on that issue, you would have learned that.
SPERAY REPLIES: Here’s the quote by St. John Chrysostom: “Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood.” He’s clearly teaching Baptism of Blood, for he says, “just as those who are baptized by water.”
Your writing contains many other lies and false statements on ‘baptism of blood’, which I will not spend time covering here. It’s also interesting that you hold the repeatedly anathematized heresy that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve address this point here: KO Argument in Defense of Baptism of Blood and Desire
You repeatedly write things such as the following, which are, of course, blatant lies:
“Every pope and saint is against them [on BOD]” – completely false mortally sinful lie.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s true generally speaking. Can anyone point out a pope that has rejected the concept of Baptism of desire especially after Trent?
“…They [popes] have taught it [BOD] over and over in encyclicals…” – false mortally sinful lie
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Innocent II taught it once. Pope Innocent III taught it once. Pope St. Pius V taught it with his Catechism, Pope Pius IX taught it twice. Pope St. Pius X taught it with his Catechism and the Roman Catechism. Pope Benedict XV taught it in the law. Dimond is doing the lying.
These are just a few of the lies in your writing. I have not bothered to expand upon the many other pages of your false argumentation, distortions, errors, failure to address key points and quotes, etc. There are literally hundreds of such things in your writing.
SPERAY REPLIES: So far Dimond hasn’t shown one error yet, unless you include Denzinger’s mistranslation which doesn’t affect the argument.
You misidentify key documents in a way a person familiar with the issue would not; you contradict yourself on central claims, etc. Many of these facts will probably be covered in an audio now that you have backed out of the second debate – not because your writing is overly significant, but because it further demonstrates the falsity of BOD and its defenders. The only things your writings expose are the numerous flaws in your arguments. I could expatiate on this point if I wanted to.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ll be waiting to see, but if Dimond can easily misrepresent me, then you can bet that he’ll do the same with everyone and everything else.
It’s also interesting that, after I pointed out how your blog comments deliberately omitted numerous e-mails in our correspondence, in order to hide key facts and give a false impression, you have now added those missing e-mails to the previous post on your blog in order make it appear as if you had them there all along. That’s very interesting. By doing so you also dishonestly attempt to make it appear as if I was inaccurate in saying you omitted those e-mails, when I was not. You indeed omitted them. By the way, I have electronic proof of both versions of your blog post – the one which omits the e-mails, and the one which contains them.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another lie. I stated, “IT’S THERE NOW” after Dimond pointed it out. I didn’t intentionally omit anything. I showed where I omitted some of my own emails that show where I stand. Dimond’s point is moot except that it proves that he rashly judges and condemns as usual. He thinks he’s a god.
In conclusion, our previous debate, and your refusal to have the second debate which you agreed to have, says all one needs to know. If you do not indicate within the next day or two that you have changed your mind about doing the next telephone debate, I will proceed as mentioned above.
-Bro. Peter Dimond
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve clearly dealt where I stand. Everyone who reads this post can know beforehand, that Dimond will continue with his misrepresentations of my work. Not surprising, he does the same thing with the Church, because he thinks he’s a god who knows it all.When you have a god complex like Dimond, you never need to apologize, never need to be corrected, never commit errors, can never be questioned, think your views are the logical ones (because you see everything in a twisted way that runs contrary to the obvious), think you can read the hearts and motives of all men, and that everyone else has the problems while you have all the answers. You even think you know better than the whole Church as you call its official catechisms, laws, encyclicals, etc. erroneous because they don’t square up to your personal interpretation of the Bible, Councils, etc. I WON’T DEBATE OR EVEN COMMUNICATE WITH THE LIKES OF DIMOND AND HIS ILK.
Steven,
Simply put, a man who does not know the definition of “OR” needs our prayer.
Simply put, a man who in an attempt to discredit St. Thomas Aquinas decides to put his faith in Michael Malone who claims that 30 yrs. ago Dr. Andre Daignes, Professor of Philosophy in Buenos Aires, Argentina found 24 formal errors in St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, then gives this opinion;
This simply proves again that the theological speculations of even our greatest sainted theologians are just that – fallible speculations.
Again, needs our prayer.
Are we supposed to believe these errors went undetected (approx. 560 yrs.) by Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I.
Wow, talk about putting your trust in man!
The list goes on and on with that book of false interpretations they wrote.
All of you who claim to be Catholics yet attack the church,
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve never attacked the Catholic Church.
twist truths, spread lies and attempt to tarnish our Holy Father the Pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve never twisted a truth or spread lies about anyone, much less a pope. I’ve never tarnished the Holy Father. If you mean, Francis I, then you have a problem, not me. Francis I rejects DOGMAS AND DIVINE LAWS. I’ve shown which ones and not a single soul has ever attempted to prove otherwise.
You are clearly under the influence of the wrong spirit.
SPERAY REPLIES: The wrong spirit is behind my exposing liars and false popes? Or is it you who is under the wrong spirit?
You argue among yourselves,
SPERAY REPLIES: Saints have argued among themselves. Everybody argues. Even you argue against people the claim the same religion as you.
show little or no humility,
SPERAY REPLIES: Give me an example.
seem obsessed with hellfire and damnation
SPERAY REPLIES: Christ spoke more about hellfire and damnation that heaven. Scripture as a whole does, too. But I’m not obsessed with it. I’m obsessed with Christ, who is the Truth!
rather than mercy and love and are no more Christlike than Adolf Hitler.
SPERAY REPLIES: How is your comment here any different, where you falsely accuse me, and misrepresent my position?
I challenge any of you the true Heretics to give one example of Pope Francis going against the teachings of Our Lord Jesus or his holy Church doctrine? Give one example?.
SPERAY REPLIES: Vatican 2 and all the conciliar popes promote the heresy that the Church is divided. Vatican 2 and all the conciliar popes practice and promote communicatio in sacris which has been condemned by the Catholic Church numerous times as contrary to the Divine law. I’ve shown all this several times in several different articles and books.
You obsess on frivolous things like the shoes he wore or what passport he uses etc.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s a lie. I’ve said one thing about anything of the like. I stick to the dogmas and divine laws.
Can you not see it yourselves? Are you so blind with judgmentalness and hatred to see that you are the modern day Pharisees!
SPERAY REPLIES: I see that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you are falsely judging me! You are the modern day Pharisee!
Obsessed with rules, regulations and traditions that you miss the point completely.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! You miss the point that we must believe in the teachings of the Church and God.
Jesus said the Sabbath was for man, not man for the Sabbath, yet you would be the Pharisees accusing Jesus of Blasphemy for breaking Sabbath tradition and rules.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong again. However, you would accuse Jesus of being obsessed with hellfire and damnation, of obedience, etc.
This Pope in particular is a breath of fresh air for the church and is bringing back many lost souls to Jesus.
SPERAY REPLIES: Francis I is a devil! He rejects the teachings of the Church and is leading a billion plus people to hell!
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
SPERAY REPLIES: You should be ashamed of yourself for making false accusations without the facts!
You have already began to divide among yourselves with disagreements and you will continue to do so for your teachings are not from God.
SPERAY REPLIES: What are you talking about? I’m not divided by any knowledgeable Catholic. The Dimond brothers are not Catholic. They reject teachings of the Church just like the conciliar pope.
Just as the Protestant religions splintered into hundreds of thousands of sects, so too will you divide.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your religion is divided! You have members who reject the Real Presence, believe in women priestesses, artificial contraception, etc. etc..
As written in scripture, the church is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them;
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s correct. You will not overthrow the real Catholic Church, but you and your false popes are trying very hard. Alas, we are still here fighting the good fight and exposing your false counterfeit church.
or else you may even be found fighting against God.
SPERAY REPLIES: You already are fighting against God, by acknowledging false popes who pray and worship with non-Catholics, which has been condemned by the entire Church throughout Her entire history!
It is an insult to Jesus to claim that his Holy Catholic church has been took over by evil forces as Jesus himself promised that the gates of hell would never prevail over his church.
SPERAY REPLIES: I DON’T MAKE THAT CLAIM. I claim that evil forces have taken over Rome, not the Holy Catholic Church. Are you aware that it is the universal teaching of the Fathers that Rome will lose the Faith?
The Pope is our ROCK and that is why we stand firm while you waver and spread lies and fear.
SPERAY REPLIES: The pope is the Rock when you have one. Popes must believe in the Catholic faith which Francis I does not!
I pity you for just as the Protestant brethren did back in the reformation, you have lost your way and you have lost your Sheppard.
SPERAY REPLIES: I PITY YOU THAT YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR FAITH, AND ACCEPT IMPOSTERS AS POPES. I PITY YOU THAT YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH BUT WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER YOUR FALSE POPES TELL YOU JUST LIKE THE FREEMASONS SAID WOULD HAPPEN WHEN THEY PUT ONE OF THEIR OWN IN THE PAPAL CHAIR.
When somebody resorts to argumentum ad Hitlerum you know they’ve lost the plot.
If anybody reads the comments along with the articles on this website it is clear that Steve debated Br. Peter Dimond on the first occasion for the sake of a man named Justin who followed (and may still follow) the Dimond brothers. While Justin put up some reasonable arguments against BOD Steve was able to answer his objections with Church teachings and logic to back it up. Justin as mentioned in the you tube video by Br. Peter requested Steve to debate them and not only did Steve debate them, but he did it on their terms and conditions. It may appear that he did bad, but if one listens closely, it is clear that Br. Peter would hardly let him have a word and was very rude the entire time attacking him at the very beginning with some cheap and possibly questionable quotes by Bp. Robert McKenna that they claim was written to them.
Now that Steve has leaked out the email exchanges between the two, it is obvious that Br. Peter has screwy conditions which are set up so he can win. It is like somebody who wants to run a race to the finish line, but wants a head start just to be sure that he will be at the end first.
The interesting thing is that Br. Peter isn’t interested in a written debate nor a formal vocal debate as is implied but his own set up or rigged type.
For example why would somebody want to talk about the Roman Catechism and the Council of Florence and only limit it to one claim that supports their position based on these matters? Why not unlimited claims that supports their position? Why doesn’t Br. Peter want Steve to bring up Pope Pius IX or The Pope St. Pius X Catechism regarding the BOD teaching for his supported claim? Any honest person can see that Br. Peter doesn’t want to deal with those things because he knows that he is debunked right off the bat. And then he attempts to call Steve at 1 o’clock in the morning knowing that he has a family and claims (after he has been caught) that he wanted to discuss over the phone how they could set up the next debate arrangements. I find that hard to believe. I would put a bet on it that knowing that Steve was up at that time, it would give Br. Peter the opportunity to catch him off guard and start his controlled debate like he did the first time regardless of whether Steve asked for a 2 day notice. This man is a liar as inconsiderate as one can get I don’t have any respect for him and if I go to his website I will do so very seldom
C’mon Br. Peter why don’t you debate Steve in a written form since you already got your way the first time? Are you afraid?
Steven: I’m a former Feeneyite, who, by the grace of God, left Feeneyism some 7 years ago. When I say I was a Feeneyite, I was not just merely someone who agreed with this heresy; I was an ardent promoter of it. I not only once visited Feeney’s gravesite in Still River, MA, I also visited both “St. Benedict Center’s” in Still River and New Hampshire. At the latter location, I visited for a few weeks in the ’90’s when I was just out of high school.
That Baptism of Desire and Blood are Catholic Teaching, cannot be denied and I readily admit that I was wrong—dead wrong—in having believed otherwise.
Feeneyism is like Islam in the sense that there is something almost diabolical about this error: Very, very few people who get involved in it ever leave it. It has a weird, almost fanatical stranglehold among its adherents. A Feeneyite acts as if this one doctrine, outside the Church there is no salvation, is the only doctrine in all of Catholicism. They can’t help but talk about it and almost nothing else for many of them. And while it has the facade of true Catholic piety and love for Our Holy Mother Church, it bears the peculiar hallmark of hypocrisy because, while professing that the Church is Infallible and Unchanging, whenever and wherever Council, writings, saints or popes refer to Baptism of Blood or Desire, suddenly,the Church, for a brief moment, loses Her Infallibility. In their minds, ultimately, She is only infallible in those instance where quotes can be isolated and taken out of context to seemingly state what they fanatically insist upon.
Another interesting thing about Feeneyism: MOST Feeneyites are in the Novus Ordo; and few are Sedevacantists. The Dimonds are most unique in this regard. When I was one, it was a most rare thing to find one who was both Feeneyite and Sedevacantist. The two groups almost seemed to be innately suspicious of one another.
ALL….and I do say ALL….Feeneyites have one thing in common: They have to ignore the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, or disclaim its infallibility, because—and they know this—-it contradicts what they hold in too many instances to be an “exception”. (Canon Law for one).
Now, with respect to the Dimonds, please advert to the following considerations:
1. Unlike ALL other Feeneyites, the Dimonds hold that one cannot be justified (that is, translated from the state of enmity and separation from Almighty God to the state of sanctifying grace) without and before the waters of Baptism. Despite its errors on insisting on the indispensability of water Baptism *alone*, even Feeneyites admit that Trent’s comment on “…or its desire…” means that non-baptized persons who are sorry for their sins can be moved to a state of “justification” (or sanctifying grace) from a state of original sin. But they also say (wrongly) that although one can be “justified” without baptism, one cannot be “saved” without Water Baptism under any circumstances world without end, amen.
1a. This false interpretation given by the Dimonds is signficant, because no one else—no saint, no Scripture, no Tradition, no Pope, no theologian, no Council, no Canon Law—no one— has given this interpretation to the passage from Trent; not even Father Feeney himself. Let’s do the math: Trent ended in 1563, and lets use, roughly, 2003, give or take a few years for Dimonds’ innovations. This means that for 440 years(!), Catholics had no idea what the correct Church Teaching was which bears on their eternal salvation (and others) with respect to justification and sanctifying grace.
This further presents a theological conundrum: Where was the Visible, True Church during all that time? And no one, not a single person within the Church, stood uncompromisingly for the unvarnished Catholic truth before the advent of internet technology. Or even noticed it?
2. The Dimonds contend that Canon Law was not infallible because it was never signed by the Pope. The source they use for this is a certain Patrick P., a Feeneyite of the ugliest sort (and Feeneyites are a most weird lot; I would know). The question that ought to be asked is but never is is: Who wrote the 1917 Code? Answer: It was commissioned under Pius X, but the main author was a certain young priest and later Bishop. They may have heard of him: His name was Eugenio Pacelli, who would go on to be Pius XII years subsequent.
2a. We must deduce then that the Dimonds don’t think Pacelli was aware of Catholic doctrine. More seriously, he would have to be “heretical”, a word they throw around carelessly. Since Pius XII authored the Code, should they not regard him as an anti-Pope? No; they (the Dimonds) should humble themselves and admit that they are seriously straying from Church teaching.
I could go on, but I feel that I have taken too much of this thread in any case.
Humbly, I would offer the following suggestions if I may:
1. Bishop George Hay in “The Sincere Christian” makes this doctrine clear without any attenuations or excuses. Question 26 should be read very carefully, because it gives the orthodox interpretation. Now, I will say that I don’t honestly know if Trad leaders teach this—-but I’ll take Bishop Hay over any of them any day. He had authorization that not a single one of them has.
2. Don’t defend Traditionalist Priests, bishops, or groups, or individuals: DEFEND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. That is your obligation. You are not their defense attorneys. And we can be saved without their ministrations; but without and outside of the Catholic faith (at least in desire) we cannot be saved.
3. To your credit, you have been very kind, almost too kind in your dealings with these people. I was one of them and I’ll tell you this: Don’t be.
The biggest proponents of the denial of Baptism of Desire are themselves, ironically, outside the Church. But for them, alas, there is no excuse.
Thanks Tyrone! What a powerful testimony.
I mentioned Bishop George Hay’s book in earlier comments. He’s most clear. Also, Fr. Michael Müller wrote a catechism titled “Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine” which teaches Baptism of Desire. Dimond actually uses Fr. Müller in their book, apparently unaware that he taught BOD.
Dimond twists literally everything. I think of St. Peter’s epistle about how the ignorant and unstable twist St. Paul’s words to their own destruction. Yet, St. Peter was saying this because some of St. Paul’s writings are hard to understand. Dimond twists things that are easy to understand. It’s as if he’s possessed.
When he said that I was possessed by the devil, and I came back that maybe it was he that was possessed, he became incensed and retaliated.
There’s a darkness there for sure!
Steve,
I haven’t been following all the nuanced details of the “2nd debate drama” between you and Brother Peter, but I would like to get a clarification on this. Would you be willing to debate him if the format of a phone debate were different? For example: moderated by a third party with time limits imposed.
To be fair to him, there are numerous examples of debates between him and other parties where cross-talk/over-talk/ad hominums are not occurring at all. I would say that >70% of the debates are like this. Even debates where there is no moderator – but strict time limits have been agreed to – are civil. It seems that things tend to get “nasty” when a rigid structure or a moderator is absent.
– Mike
Mr. Speray:
Whoever this Mike is, he attempting to trick you into a debate.
You need not print this; just please beware. Again, I know how these heretics operate as I was one of them.;
I have their number, you can believe that.
Whoever this Tyrone is, he is being dishonest.
What did I say that is false or duplicitous? For every Dimond “ad hominum” debate on YouTube that Tyrone can cite, I can cite at least one that isn’t.
Go ahead Tyrone, prove me wrong.
Mike,
Where in Canon Law does it state that public debates are permissible anyway?
Go ahead Mike, prove me wrong.
Huh?
Non-sequitor, irrelevant and non-responsive.
P.S.
Hey genius…..
Even if you could make some tenuous “case” as to the theoretical applicability of Canon Law to the issue of debates, the burden of proof would be on you to show where Canon Law says such debates are not permissible, not the converse.
Mike,
I may be no genius, but I know that rabid anti-semite,Fr. Feeney,did not teach the doctrine of Mother Church.
I have a copy of “A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law”, by Woywood-Smith. But I’ll let you find the relevant passages on debating publicly yourself, since I’m clearly incapable of doing so. Chances are you won’t even bother to go look.
Tyrone wrote: “Feeneyism is like Islam in the sense that there is something almost diabolical about this error: Very, very few people who get involved in it ever leave it. It has a weird, almost fanatical stranglehold among its adherents. A Feeneyite acts as if this one doctrine, outside the Church there is no salvation, is the only doctrine in all of Catholicism. They can’t help but talk about it and almost nothing else for many of them.”
That statement reminded me of the following quote. When reading this, keep in mind that Feeneyism originated as a reaction against the Liberals, who were going too far in the other direction by watering down EENS to the point where it became, as Pius XII said, “a meaningless formula”. With that in mind, consider what Adrian Fortesque had to say about heresy:
“It will be well to explain at once what all the trouble was about, by drawing up the point in which Arius and his followers were heretics. In the first place, Arianism did not spring full-grown and fully armed at one moment… We know that no heresy ever really began like that. It is never the case that one man out of sheer wickedness suddenly invents a false doctrine. We can always trace the germs and tendencies, that afterwards develop into the heresy, back to many years before the father of the sect was born. A movement begins; very often at first it is a vigorous and extreme opposition to some patently false teaching. Then this way of looking at things crystallizes and hardens; it is taken up enthusiastically by some school, it becomes a point of honor with a certain party to insist upon it… At last, someone gets hold of the theory, oversteps every limit in his defense of it, and is eagerly supported by the rest of the party. And then he finds himself condemned by the Church” (The Greek Fathers, Pg. 4).
This is exactly what happened with the baptism of desire deniers. Their sensus catholicus alerted to the error of the Liberals, who were watering down EENS, and they ended up going to far in reaction, eventually rejecting what has been taught from the earliest years of the Church. Then, they were forced to twist various magisterial teachings in order to justify their heretical position (or doesn’t mean “or”, it means “and”, etc., etc., etc.). They are forced to reject catechism and teachings from the 1917 Code, because they cannot reconcile the teaching contained within them with their novel error; and make no mistake about it, the denial of BOD and BOB is a pure novelty, and novelty has always been a mark of heresy. Peter Dimond told me personally that he is aware of 100 pre-Vatican II theological manuals that teach the doctrine he denies, yet that doesn’t seem to cause him a bit of pause..
The root cause of their error is a form of rationalism, which makes human reason the principle and judge of truth. It is the same error of Luther, differing only in its practical aspect. Whereas Luther erred by privately interpreting the Bible contrary to how the Church interprets it, the BOD and BOB denies error by privately interpreting dogmas, contrary to how the Church interprets them. The Bible is 100% true, just as dogmas are, yet they are not to be interpreted privately in contradiction to how the Church understands them.
This rationalism is rooted in pride – “I know better how to interpret these dogmas than all the Popes and Church approved theologians that preceded me”. And they don’t merely disagree with these Popes and Church approved theologians, they go so far as to say the common teaching of the Church is heretical. This pride is then punished by God with intellectual blindness. When this happens, all arguments will do little, since God has withdrawn from them.
I have no doubt that the Dimond Brothers truly believe their novel doctrine is true, and all who preceded them were heretics (at least objectively). Interestingly, when you point out the Popes and theologians who have taught the error, which they claim is heretics, they always say these men “were in good faith”. You see, these Saints and Doctors of the Church did not have the Dimond Brothers around to instruct them and enlighten them to the truth. This degree of intellectual pride is actually scary.
Steven mentioned a number of Popes who have taught BOD and BOB. Here’s a quote from one more.
Pope Pius XII: “In the case of other, more necessary sacraments, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forgo even external signs in order to bring grace into the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water on his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.” (Dear Newlyweds, pg 13)
That is the teaching of the Church. Keep in mind that the Dimond Brothers claim one who holds to this teaching of the Church is a heretic, and that a heretic cannot be Pope, but I can guarantee that if you present this teaching of POPE Pius XII to them, they will immediately start making excuses – just like the Novus Ordos did about John Paul II “the great”. If the Dimond Brothers were consistent, they would have to accuse Pius XII of being an Anti-pope for publicly adhering to this “heresy”.
RJS said:
“….keep in mind that Feeneyism originated as a reaction against the Liberals, who were going too far in the other direction by watering down EENS to the point where it became, as Pius XII said, “a meaningless formula”.”
RJS, can you explain this is more detail please? Namely, in what way, to what extent was EENS being watered down pre-Vatican 2? Please be specific.
Thanks.
Mike,
I’ll answer in two ways: First, by giving a general tendency that was present. Then I’ll address a specific error.
The general tendency is to place emphasis on, what could be called, the “exception”, rather than the rule. Eventually this heretical tendency develops to the point where what is merely *possible*, become probably, and later is considered the norm.
We see this, not only with BOD and BOB, but more recently with confession. The normal way to have our sins forgiven is to confess them and receive absolution, but it is also “possible” to have them forgiven by an act of perfect contrition. Of course, one will never know for sure if they have made an act of perfect contrition (as opposed to mere attrition), but nevertheless, it is within the realm of possibility for a person in mortal sin to obtain the state of grace without receiving sacramental absolution. This is the exception to the rule.
In recent years, the Liberals have began to speak of this “possibility” as a substitute for confession. Some priest now say that it is not necessary to confess to a priest, since all a person has to do is make an act of perfect contrition. Notice how they make the exception into the rule, and thereby undermined the rule.
Now, if someone’s sensus Catholicus alerted them to this error, they could easily draw a false conclusion in reaction: they could conclude that the idea that a person could have their sins forgiven by an act of perfect contrition was false. And they could see this “heresy” as the cause of people no longer going to confession regularly. Therefore, instead of attacking the *tendency* of making a rule out of the exception (and thereby undermining the rule), they would mistakenly direct the attack against a true teaching of the Church.
Next, due to false zeal for the Faith, they could may easily fall into the error of claiming that the teaching that a person can have their sins forgiven by an act of perfect contrition is false (never defined de fide). Next, they could simply disregard everything the Church approved theologians said on the subject, while simultaneously twisting the words of dogmatic decrees to support their position.
For example, they could claim that when the Council of Trent says that sin can be remitted “by the sacrament OR the desire of the sacrament…”, that the word “or” really means “and”. So what the Council is *really* saying (according to their novel interpretation) is that a person must not only receive the sacrament, but also have a desire for it. You see how they could twist this passage to fit their novel teaching?
But to answer your question specifically, one of the ways EENS was being watered down prior to Vatican II was through misunderstanding of terminology used by St. Robert Bellarmine and a number of pre-Vatican II councils, which spoke of the “body” and the “soul” of the Church. Rather than considering these as two distinct parts of the one Church of Christ, the Liberals began to speak as if the body and soul were two distinct entities. The Roman Catholic Church was the body, and the Mystical body of Christ was the soul – the members of the soul was known to God alone. It was a variant of Luther’s “invisible Church” theory. They claimed that it sufficed to be a member of the soul of the Church for salvation, even if the person was in no way a member of the body. That was a specific error that watered down the dogma, and it was condemned by Pius XII two times.
In reality, it is necessary to be a member of the body; but membership in the body of the Church does not always have to be actual; it can sometimes suffice that a person be joined to the body of the Church “in voto”. And since knowledge of the Church itself is not necessary for salvation (since the only supernatural knowledge necessary is belief in the Trinity and Incarnation), it is possible that a person can have an implicit desire to be united to the body of the Church.
For example if a seriously retarded man, who did not possess the use of reason, was baptized by a Baptist preacher during a Baptist service, he would actually be a member of the body of the Catholic Church “in voto”, even if he had never heard about the Catholic Church. Another example would be a grown man with the use of reason who had never heard of Christ. If a Russian Orthodox missionary visited him, converted him and instructed him in the basics of the Faith (without getting into the issue of the Pope or any of the Orthodox heresies), and if this person accepted the necessary truths and was baptized, he would be a member of the body of the Catholic Church “in voto”; and if he died before committing a mortal sin or embracing a heresy, he would go to heaven.
But the Liberals took this “exception” and made it into a rule, by a false understanding of the body and soul of the Church. They claimed that as long as a person was *sincere*, they were a member of the soul of the Church and could be saved. In effect, it really didn’t matter if a person was a Catholic or not, since they could be saved in any religion. Of course, they might claim the Catholic Church was the best religion, but it was certainly not necessary for salvation.
Here we can see that not only was the false tendency present (making the exception into the rule), but theological error itself was introduced in order to justify the conclusion resulting from the erroneous tendency.
But the important point is to realize that some misguided people, such as Fr. Feeney and the Dimond Brothers, react to the error of the Liberals (who make a rule out the exception), and end up falling into error in the other direction. In reaction to this error, the Dimond Brothers have deviated from Tradition, and are forced to not only reject the clear teaching of catechisms and pre-Vatican II theological manuals, but also twist and contort the decrees of various councils, in order to justify their novelty. It should be enough to say that their denial of BOD is a novelty; and novelty has always been the distinguishing mark of heresy.
And the worst part is, this error is so deeply ingrained in them that I don’t think they will ever see their way out of it. Their false zeal has led them into serious error, and almost certainly into heresy as well; and when a person falls into heresy they lose the faith; when the Faith goes so does charity; and if there is mark that characterizes the Dimond Brothers, it is a lack of charity and a general nasty spirit.
Much more could be said, but this will have to suffice for now.
steven: I wish I could say I see evidence of humility in you and peter dimond. but I don’t, alas.
SPERAY REPLIES: I ADMIT FAULT WITH LACK OF HUMILITY. IT’S A TERRIBLE VICE.
lots of intellectually brilliant theological debates, which often end up as verbal duals.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t think they are brilliant debates.
like good protestants, you have ended up hurling anathemas against each other.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have not hurled anathemas to Dimond. The closest I’ve come is saying that it appears that he falls under Trent’s two anathemas for rejecting the law of the Church.
and if you were honest that would be a wake up call. it’s hard to even take in that two very intelligent professing catholics can be so arrogantly blind. what i mean is, it’s one thing to know theology regarding sin and blindness, but when i see it in the flesh i ask myself how is it they don’t see? is there really no need for “fear and trembling”? really?? that goes against everything that I’ve learned so painfully about the catholic church and my living faith.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t see what you’re saying. We are to defend the faith. I’ve simply showed where the Church has taught something here and there which Dimond has admittedly rejected.
pope benedict the “anti”pope has a profound understanding of his own sinfulness which explains his deep prayer life and spirituality. it’s true that I have not followed a lot of your posts, but so far I see no evidence that you realize you are spiritually over your head and have no idea what you are up against with regard to discerning the will of god for his church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wait a second. I’ve simply pointed out that the Church has taught. How do you know that I’m over my head?
and this is not just about some side issue – altar girls, etc., these are ultimate concerns, and both of you utter proclamations, without blinking an eye it seems, concerning the salvation of countless millions of Christians and nonchristians.
SPERAY REPLIES: Have you not read my post here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/the-fewness-of-the-saved-most-christians-go-to-hell/
words fail me. st paul said to “work out our OWN salvation with fear and trembling. and you’re taking on the universe.WOW!!
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not taking on anyone except those who reject the Faith.
some will say you are mad. some, like myself, will say that original sin is alive and well in steven speray’s heart and soul.
SPERAY REPLIES: Original sin is not in me since I’ve been baptized. I am a great sinner though. I admit it.
the sin of adam and eve – was the sin of pride.
SPERAY REPLIES: I would say I suffer from vanity, not pride. Adam and Eve wanted to be gods, I don’t.
your intellectual gifts are impressive, but what is the state of your soul?
SPERAY REPLIES: If I’m not in a state of grace, my God put me there, if I am, may God keep me there.
the integrity of your spiritual life will determine your standing before god. you must die to self, a lifetimes work, and then some.
SPERAY REPLIES: AGREED!
not to assume intellectual and moral superiority(remember martin luther,”here I stand I can do no other”)? even a deep prayer life is not enough to get through the inpenetrable thickets of our subjective lives. luther had a deep prayer life. many protestants today are sincere and prayerful. then they go and start new churches. is that from the holy spirit? no way. and from what I can see your prayer life is superficial at best. both you and peter are arrogant and ruled by the sin of pride. the difference between you is that you have a more pleasing personality, are more open to reason. diamond, on the other hand is a control freak, a very anal guy.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I suffer from a type of arrogance. It’s the Irish in me.
the man or woman who has serious concerns about vat 2 needs, first of all, to be deeply humble, open to correction. if they are absent then you are to be pitied. so if you think your gifts, your painstaking research and studies are enough to protect you from grevious error, think again. can you imagine Aquinas refusing to submit to the teaching church and humble himself. it’s not possible. or any of the church’s great saints and doctors. by definition they allowed god to humble them. the kungs, the mcbriens and many others, do what you do, albeit, for different reasons. they will not submit to the pope, hence the holy spirit. you and the others have intransigent personalities. and there is nothing wrong with that except when they become obstacles to holy submission. the truly humble man or woman is always suspicious of his own desires, motives and convictions. that is not possible to fallen human beings. the work of the holy spirit is absolutely necessary. but we have to give assent, which also requires grace. we are more apt to take unshakeable stands on “principle” which is just the ego’s way of rationalizing ignorance and stupidity. in case I have to send this as an anonymous I go by the name of TomH.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have to say that you’re mostly right. My intentions is to help people see the Faith and defend the Faith. It’s very difficult to do so without sounding arrogant, prideful, etc. What would you suggest that I do differently? I’m open for correction here.
thanks steven for your prompt response. I must say I did not know what to expect, but you have confirmed my opinion of you from when I first started reading your posts. you are a very decent fellow even though I stand by my above comment. I too am of irish descent. my great grandparents settled on the east coast of Canada. it was difficult for me to send my comment because I’ve spent my life mostly doing my best to not attract attention to myself. my spiritual life underwent a profound , or I should say began, a profound conversion in 1986. and I’ve never looked back. anyway steven, I want to respond to each of your comments, but not tonite. btw, my comment re “hurling anathamas at each other” was not meant strictly literally. just to make a point. thanks again and god bless.
you are willing to admit to lack of humility to the extent that you are able(“it’s a terrible vice”)but there are depths to our lack of humility than just our inability to be charitable or not respond to difficult people with frustration and impatience. impatience and frustration are faults that I still have not mastered. that lack of humility goes to the hidden core of our fallen nature.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m sure anyone masters perfection in everything. So what’s your point? Should we not engage in argumentation about the faith?
i’ll say more when I come to your comment on pride and baptism. “hurling anathemas” I mentioned that in my second comment last nite. I was making a point about individuals struggling with catholic truth. how quickly, starting with the best of intentions, theological debates deteriorate into hostile bickering.
SPERAY REPLIES: Who’s doing the hostile bickering? How do you proclaim the truth without being accused of hostile bickering?
this is very human, and I certainly don’t feel superior, even though I hate arguing. but it shows the power of the subjective quagmire we all live with and how easily we slip into a state of unreason. perhaps, like you implied being irish doesn’t help. i’m irish too. without any harsh judgement on my part I also see a deeper dimension to this. that we crave answers, we crave certainty, and we will accept a lesser answer if we don’t or can’t accept the bottom line of what may be deeper mysteries regarding our behaviour. I do it too. i.e. “it’s because i’m irish.” the other point I want to make before I go on is to ask who will decide which of you is correct re bod & b? I agree with you because that’s what the church has taught since the church fathers, and of course you agree the church will decide. but that’s not my point. peter dimond is wrong on this one. who or what is going to save him from himself? who or what is going to save you from yourself re the popes since pius 12? neither of you has any higher recourse.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already decided to go with the Church and follow Her laws and official catechisms. Dimond has decided not to do so. What difference you decides who’s correct? You either follow the Church or you don’t. My position doesn’t require me to write off laws and catechism like Dimond’s position.
just like those dumb protestants.
SPERAY REPLIES: Protestants reject the teaching of the Church. Dimond picks and chooses what he’ll believe. I simply believe it all. I’m not being a Protestant.
are your debates brilliant – your’s and peter’s? i’ll admit that i’m a bit awed by the scope of your theological understanding(i like to give credit when it’s deserved). and frankly steven i’m not qualified to evaluate any of your claims about the popes in question and the history of papal documents. so even if you are right about them being “antipopes” who decides that?
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THAT FOR YOURSELF. CAN YOU REASONABLE RECOGNIZE WHETHER SOMEONE IS CATHOLIC OR NOT BASED ON HIS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES?
there are several points of view on this so it’s still up for debate. i’m thinking bob sungenis’ less extreme position on the nature of papal documents, papal motives, desires, confusion is very reasonable.
SPERAY REPLIES: Dr. Sungenis doesn’t follow the logical conclusions. Also, his best argument is that we can’t judge a pope not to be a pope. He’s right! No one is doing that.
therefore, as a faithful catholic I am obliged to give francis, benedict, john paul 2, paul 6 and john 23 the benefit of the doubt.
SPERAY REPLIES: Benefit of the doubt about what? They don’t believe in the Catholic Faith which is obvious. Since no one can judge hearts and intention, we must judge in the external forum.
the alternative is unthinkable.
SPERAY REPLIES: What alternative? That they aren’t popes or that they are. It’s unthinkable to me that such men could be considered popes since they reject so much of the Catholic Faith.
i’m not interested in putting them on a pedestal either. it just goes to show that geniuses of the stature of john paul and benedict can and do make serious mistakes. no one escapes the reality of sin.
SPERAY REPLIES: Mere sin is one thing, blatant heresy and acts of apostasy are another. Everybody sins, everybody makes mistakes. But can theologians who spent their whole lives in Catholic theology be mistaken for 50 years on the Divine law about inter-religious worship and holding that non-Catholics are members of the Church?
you and peter obviously have an important grasp of papal documents, universal truth, infallibility, dogmas, etc. but even there you can’t agree.
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course, not. Dimond can’t even understand simple concepts. After I repeatedly told him my position, he went on and made video on youtube that is exactly opposite from what I repeatedly told him. I’ve shown how he twists everything.
this is what I know with certainty – there is no way that i’m going to enter eternity, on the say so of sedavacantists, with my will fixed forever on the state of rejection of those popes. for me that’s the stuff of waking nightmares.
SPERAY REPLIES: You assume their popes, I don’t. Why should I believe they are popes when they don’t believe several articles in the Apostles’ Creed? They don’t believe in the repeated teaching of the Catholic Church that forbids inter-religious worship. If you say they are popes anyway, you will have to explain to God why you would accept as popes who reject the Divine law and dogmas of the Catholic faith. That’s the stuff of nightmares! I must follow the Catholic faith and reject all that rejects the Catholic Faith. That’s what we are commanded to do by God Himself. Beware of false teachers!
I give them the benefit of the doubt.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s contrary to the Divine law and the law of the Church.
Pope Innocent III (ca. 1160-1216) “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4)
St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459) “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’” (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
St. Giacomo Tommaso de Vio Gaetani O.P. (1469-1534) “‘Where the Pope is, there is also the Church’ holds true only when the pope acts and behaves as the pope, because Peter ‘is subject to the duties of the Office’; otherwise, ‘neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church.’” (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)
St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (1542-1621) “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point.” (De Romano Pontifice, II. 30)
St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) “Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he (the Pope) is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, Tan Books, pp. 305-306)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, C.S.S.R. (1696-1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII. 9-10)
Serapius Iragui (1959): “What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?
“The response was thus: ‘Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.’ [Mansi 52:1109]
“Theologians respond the same way. We cannot prove the absolute impossibility of such an event [absolutam repugnatiam facti]. For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head.” (Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371)
J. Wilhelm (1913): “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Encyclopedia Press 1913. 7:261)
Caesar Badii (1921): “Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases: . (d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165. His emphasis)
Dominic Prümmer (1927): “The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost: . (c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably.
“The authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.
“Based on the supposition, however, that a pope could fall into heresy as a private person (for as pope he could not err in faith, because he would be infallible), various authors have worked out different answers as to how he would then be deprived of his power. None of the answers, nevertheless, exceed the limits of probability.” (Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95. His emphasis)
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)
Udalricus Beste (1946): “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.
“The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history.” (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221)
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949): ”The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c. 221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity, and notorious heresy.
“At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically [ipso facto] fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340)
does this qualify me for the above honour roll – “against tom healey?” but I guess you have bigger fish to fry. steven, I have much more to say, and I,m saving the best for later. i’ll try to send another segment later this evening. if you want to respond or not, or wait. it may take several evenings. it’s your call.
SPERAY REPLIES: HOW DO YOU APPLY THOSE TEACHINGS ABOVE?
“I don’t see what you are saying. we have to defend…” “how do you know that i’m over my head?” my comments are not really about your differences with peter. my concern has to do with the interior life.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know my interior life at all.
my own for 27 years and now yours. no one can hope to discern god’s will for the church while at the same time rejecting popes whom god has tasked with the heavy burden of navigating through the impossible storms(humanly speaking)of our complex modern pagan world.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t reject any popes! I reject antipopes as there have been many in history. Popes must hold the Catholic Faith in the external forum!
you say that it’s very difficult to not sound “arrogant and prideful”. I just realized that you may have meant exclusively your debates with peter dimond. is that true? because I was floored when I read your pieces consigning popes and most of the human race to hell. did I get that right? or do I completely misunderstand your intentions?
SPERAY REPLIES: DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/the-fewness-of-the-saved-most-christians-go-to-hell/ THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT THE WORDS OF POPES AND SAINTS.
and obviously I must be among that number if I read you correctly.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not your judge. I don’t place anyone in that number except those whom the Church has placed. As far as I recall, the Church has only taught that Judas Iscariot went to hell. Saints have placed other there too, such as Luther, Calvin, etc.
hmmm. you know the will of god?
SPERAY REPLIES: NEVER SAID I DID, NOR HAVE I EVER IMPLIED THAT I DID, EXCEPT THAT HIS WILL IS FOR US TO GET TO HEAVEN.
you don’t even understand your own will and why you do and think and feel as you do.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have completely misunderstood me and my position.
you can take the easy way out and state that you are following the bible the early popes, the church fathers and on and on.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s a way out to follow the bible, the popes, etc? Are you suggesting not to follow the Bible, popes, etc.?
it’s true the bible verses on hell and the narrow way are dense, and there is some latitude to unpack them and arrive at a somewhat different perspective. I leave that to the popes. today’s popes.
SPERAY REPLIES: POPES MUST BE CATHOLIC! WE’VE NOT HAD A POPE FOR A LONG TIME NOW!
but that’s just a way of justifying your own sinful self righteousness.
SPERAY REPLIES: THIS IS UTTERLY FALSE! I ACTUALLY WROTE WHAT POPES AND SAINTS HAVE WRITTEN. DO YOU REJECT THEM?
so once the surface is scratched – that is peter’s bullying and your mighty defence of the “true” church, one wonders if you two guys are like mirrors and you see yourselves in each other – and you don’t like what you see.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! DIMOND REJECTS THE LAWS AND CATECHISMS OF THE CHURCH. I DON’T! IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU REJECT SOME OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH AS WELL, SUCH AS, CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH. YOU SEEM TO THINK CATHOLICS CAN REJECT THE FAITH AND STILL BE CATHOLIC. IS THAT TRUE?
and if what i’m saying is true neither of you would really know what is going on since your egos would hide the truth from you. like I said last night, I think, that my reading of both of you has been selective. that being true, the thing that stands out so starkly is your complete focus on god’s justice to the exclusion of god’s love for us. his mercy. are you sure you’re not a closet Calvinist?
SPERAY REPLIES: ARE YOU SURE YOU’RE NOT? I BELIEVE IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH WHOLE AND INVIOLATE. YOU SEEM TO REJECT THE LAWS AND TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH ON SOME POINTS.
and both of you are like that. the only difference is that peter is obnoxious. is it possible that you have secret terrors of being eternally damned.
SPERAY REPLIES: I THINK YOUR COMMENT HAS COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. BY THE WAY, I’M USING ALL CAPITALS, BECAUSE IT EASIER FOR ME TO TYPE THIS FAST. I’M NOT YELLING AT YOU.
hi steven, I just read your reply. I have insomnia, and it’s after 3am here in Toronto. I want to apologize. I can see now that I was coming from arrogance myself which I did not realize. to tell the truth I feel like i’m way over my head. I had no idea this would happen. I mean the idea that these five popes, not popes from centuries ago. but today, men I admire and trust. john paul 2 and benedict. it’s just too staggering to take in, let alone accept. it was bred into my soul that a pope, any and all popes were always elected indirectly by the holy spirit. the distinctions you make between popes and antipopes is a new idea for me.
SPERAY REPLIES: Tom, there have been forty definite antipopes and twenty-eight possible antipopes (counting Benedict IX thrice and Honorius becoming so, excluding Stephen II and Hadrian V) rounding off the total at sixty-eight. I wrote a history book on the papacy called “Papal Anomalies and Their Implications” and you would be surprised to hear about what actually has taken place with the papacy. Writing the book shook my Catholic Faith a little.
could you direct me to your post that compares the apostles creed with specific teachings of these popes where they reject the creed or aspects of it. I have no choice but to follow this paper trail until I can resolve the issue one way or the other? tks
SPERAY REPLIES: The First Vatican Council taught,
” For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a
philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been
entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully
guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of
its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother
Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that
meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3].
“Therefore … let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of
individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and
progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let
it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same
sense and the same understanding.”
I’ll give you some links that explain how the conciliar popes have rejected the Creed in the same sense and same understanding as the Church has always understood them.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/how-to-tell-which-church-is-which/
thanks. for your added comments and links. no I did not think you were yelling at me(interesting image). by using caps it helps to separate your comments from those of your other responders. I’ve had intense fits of anxiety since I got your feedback from my comments to you. one thing that has become clear , and I know from long experience that I have to get detached from my feelings, images, oppression, before I can recognize my more real self. that happened today.(steven i’m assuming that it’s ok to stray a bit here away from the topic of antipopes and tell you a bit about myself. I say this because I realize you are a busy man who probably needs to catch up on your sleep, night after night) but because of the way god put me together I can never fully separate a theological question from who I am and what “makes me tick”. i’m not really academically inclined. it’s my interior life, the life of my true self’s relationship with god – that is my passion. anyway, I was at st michaels college(u of t)today and checked a catholic encyclopedia(1967)on antipopes. lo and behold the article mentioned about 37 antipopes. a point made was that most or all of them happened during times of great social upheaval. I pray and write every day and certainly this controversy has been in my prayers to get guidance. I came to see that my main reaction to you and peter was that I, a very frail and sinful man, myself, was going to have to do something – make choices(translation – flaky)on my own. there’s no way I could do that. I had not really grasped what you said that there have been many antipopes. so now I don’t feel alone. in 1986 I began to receive graces, that continue to this day. I am a cradle catholic, but when I left home at 20 I left the church. for the 9 years prior to 86 I was preoccupied with new age ideas almost to the point of obsession. then, without ever asking, I started receiving graces which led me to see the utter vacuity of new age philosophies. I musn’t forget to mention that god very quickly led me to see how arrogant and self righteous I was. years later I came to see why that destructive nonsense had such a hold on me. but that’s another story. I barely knew there had been a second vat council, and I had no idea that the west was fast heading to self destruction. then I discovered conservative catholic journals at u of t – first things, crisis, nor and others. I devoured them for years, and my eyes were opened. but looking back now I realize that none ever talked about the crises within the church such as you and peter, and robert, and e Michael jones. and of course others are debating. I bought my first laptop a year ago and I came across blogs that the corrupt mainstream media won’t touch unless they can make the church look bad. I put off getting a laptop for years because i’m intimidated by the technology. but here I am. so steven, I want to say that I am very grateful to you, and the others, for helping me to see, the church that I love, much more clearly. you have raised profound questions, and I realize you believe you have answered them according to the will of god, and I respect you for that. you have a generosity of spirit that I respond to. even though i’m not saying i will ever agree with you. I will do a lot of praying, research and seeking different points of view from various theological experts. btw. I discovered ewtn in 2004, but I have never heard a priest (i’m thinking of fr mitch pacwa)in particular, who, as far as I know has never discussed controversial issues involving popes john paul and benedict. and that disappoints me. I’ve looked at ewtn as an oasis in a very dry desert. I will stop now, and I hope you find this aspect of my story interesting . god bless.
SPERAY REPLIES: THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR STORY.
get a life!
Niki Wiki,
Who are you telling to get a life? Steve, Tom, ??? Do you think two opponets wrting about a Church teaching is a waste of time? If you think that, than you might as well think the same thing about all the theologians, doctors, popes (before Vatican 2) of the Catholic Church who wrote against their opponets on a point of Dogma/Doctrine. They were the glory of the Church because they spent a lot of time in writing about things which we understand better today. In order to love God more, you must know more about Him and His Church which is guided be the Holy Ghost. Francis the Fake in Rome is an Apostate and teaches a new Gospel, which isn’t the same Catholic Church before Vatican 2. Maybe you ought to get as better life than the one you might be leading now.
It seems to me that the Dimond Brothers are a plant put in by the enemies of the Church to sow discord among the true Catholics. Every time I try to go to a traditional catholic website their name always pops up first.
SPERAY REPLIES: Well, I can tell you this. The Dimonds are enemies of the Church. They aren’t the first on my website, however. They are sedevacantists giving Catholics a bad name!
This is the problem with religion, it divides people more than brings them together. Give up religion and become spiritual, you will be better off.
Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew:
[32] So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
[33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
[34] “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
[35] For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
[36] and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.
Give up religion and you give up Jesus.
Baptism of desire doctrine + Baptism of blood doctrine lead to invincible ignorance doctrine leads to doctrine of false ecumenism leads to indifferentism leads to atheism and/or apostasy. Extra ecclesiam omnis salus!
If salvation can be had outside of the Church then we wouldn’t need baptism of desire and blood. Baptism of desire and blood is how one gets inside the Church. The Catholic Church has been teaching and promoting baptism of desire and blood for hundreds of years in catechisms and laws. Rejecting baptism of desire and blood leads to the heretical blasphemies that the Church promulgates heresy by law and catechism and ultimately Protestantism.
@Steven Speray
We spoke via comments back in 2016, decided to comment on your response.
‘If salvation can be had outside of the Church then we wouldn’t need baptism of desire and blood. Baptism of desire and blood is how one gets inside the Church.’
What an abomination.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, WHICH IS THE GATEWAY TO THE SPIRITUAL LIFE, HOLDS THE FIRST PLACE AMONG ALL THE SACRAMENTS; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
ALL promoters of B.O.B AND B.O.D deny this but they will never admit to it and try to slither their way around it.
God brings people into His Church BY WATER BAPTISM, also the countless stories of Saints bringing people back from the dead to baptize them obliterates the demonic doctrines you promote. BTW the saints who taught desire and blood only applied it to unbaptized catechumens, not to everyone like the modernist heretics do today.
Also not every catechism taught desire and blood. EENS is a Dogma, so is water baptism. Anyone who denies this ends up re-defining the Dogma on his own,which leads to universal salvation and modernism.
“David was right in saying that all people lie. Mankind’s life on earth is a struggle and like the mountain dew that soon is gone, like the flower of the field that quickly withers. We mortals are so blind that out of such a multitude of people only a small portion know the true God, primarily in this part of the world, Europe, the Spaniards being the most faithful. Among those raised in the church, few confess the faith and many of them are in sin, so nineteen out of twenty parts of mankind live in darkness and blindness.” – Mary of Agreda [The Visions of Sor María de Agreda: Writing Knowledge and Power, p.53]
Question, is Arius and Muhammad in Hell?
No Tobit, you got it wrong again. We aren’t denying Trent because baptism is not optional. You can’t opt out of it and be saved. BOD is not saying one can opt out of baptism. And of course baptism is the GATEWAY TO THE SPIRITUAL LIFE, HOLDS THE FIRST PLACE AMONG ALL THE SACRAMENTS, that’s why we all get baptized. BOD is not denying this at all.
But since you admit that saints did teach that salvation is possible without baptism, then you would have to conclude that these saints are heretics for going against Trent as you’re arguing. However, they all didn’t teach that it only applies to catechumens.
To answer your last question: I don’t know but I would guess that they are in hell since I don’t think they converted.
I can tell you this. You are on the road to hell for denying BOD because it’s taught by many popes, saints, theologians, and canonists and to call it a heresy is to say the Church allows heresy to be taught by its popes, saints, theologians, and canonists.