The Roman Catechism VS Dimond of MHFM
The Roman Catechism states that baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…” (P. 178)
On the next page, the Catechism states that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)
So that nothing is left out, I will break down the entire section on the Roman Catechism in Dimond’s book Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, pp. 135-139.
Dimond writes: “The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A.McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common Englishtranslation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains thefollowing interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome,about the Catechism’s authority.Catechism of the Council of Trent‐ Fifteenth printing, TAN Books,Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally beenissued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching toindividuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the RomanCatechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine,and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is notinfallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and whatis de fide.”367
What Dimond omits is the fact Dr. Hagan also stated, “At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical.”
This is important because Catholics are not free to question this level of authority.
Pope Pius XII taught, “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), D 2313.
Contrary to Pope Pius XII, Dimond is already laying the groundwork why he has the right to question, label as erroneous, and not give assent to this level of authority of the Church.
Twice, I asked Dimond point blank if the pertinent phrases in the Roman Catechism are heretical and he refused to answer the question.
In the next few sections, Dimond attempts to show where and why he thinks the Roman Catechism is in conflict with the Council of Trent and other papal documents. His purpose is to demonstrate that if the Catechism is erroneous on other points of doctrine, he can logically argue against those pertinent phrases above as contrary to the absolute necessity of Baptism under all conditions. His argument, then, will be that the Roman Catechism is outright heretical through implication. Unfortunately for Dimond, Pope Clement XIII declared on June 14, 1761 in In Dominico Argo that the Roman Catechism “is far removed from every danger of error.” Dimond, like typical liberals, picks and chooses what he’ll believe.
Dimond continues…
“The fact that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small errors can be detected within its text. For example:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”368
Here the Catechism teaches that outside the Church none can attain grace. This is not true. Predisposing or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church sothat they can turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace isgranted.”369 Thus, what we have here is an error in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra).370 Nevertheless, Godallowed the Catechism to err in this manner because it is not infallible in everythingit teaches.”
Dimond omits the context of the Catechism that implied sanctifying grace. Dimond is going out of his way in attempt to find an error that’s not really there. He needs to find that error to demonstrate that the Catechism is faulty which he thinks gives him the right to question those paragraphs that clearly teach Baptism of Desire.
Notice also that Pope Clement XI didn’t specify what grace he was speaking about either. He didn’t say “actual”, “predisposing or prevenient” grace. Dimond would have to conclude that Pope Clement XI erred too, since outside the Church no sanctifying grace is granted.
Thus far, Dimond is the only one in any real error, not the Roman Catechism, nor Pope Clement XI.
Dimond continues…
“Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so‐called “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism.
Dimond sounds very much like the Protestant who says the Bible has no mention of Purgatory. However, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire is explained nicely just as the Bible explains Purgatory without actually mentioning the words.
To call the Catechism phrase “ambiguous” is genuinely dishonest. There’s absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever.
The Catechism says baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…”
This statement clearly implies that there is another means of salvation besides Baptism for those above the age of reason. Then the Catechism concludes what it is:
“The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
Viola, Baptism of Desire!
Even Fr. Feeney didn’t reject this teaching. He erroneously concluded that there must be another permanent place for such people besides Heaven and Hell. You can find his teaching in his book “The Bread of Life” and magazine “From the Housetops.”
The Roman Catechism borrowed its statement on infants from Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
The infallible council implied that there’s another remedy other than Baptism for those who have attained the age of reason. Thus, the Roman Catechism was not teaching anything new. Yet, the same Catechism quotes four times John 3:5.
Dimond must necessarily conclude that the Roman Catechism is contradicting itself.
Also, Dimond knows the teaching of Pope Pius VI on ambiguous teachings when the pope condemned the Synod of Pistoia in his Bull “Auctorem fidei,” August 28, 1794:
“Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to catholic truth is camouflaged.”
Therefore, Dimond must render the Roman Catechism heretical based on his assertion that it’s ambiguous “which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism.”
Regardless, Dimond is lying because it’s not a mere appearance the Catechism is teaching Baptism of Desire. It clearly and unambiguously teaches it. So much, in fact, that Canons 1239.2 and 737 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law are based off this teaching found in the Roman Catechism.
Continuing…
“But even in this paragraph we find errors. For instance, the passage says that “should any unforeseenaccident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination toreceive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”
There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible”to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes,even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”371
God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema bythe Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for aman who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what youcan do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”372
Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible document could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.”
Dimond is really grasping for straws at this point.
Trent’s statement is speaking about, “a man who is justified” obeying the commandments of God. It’s addressing those who would argue that, “the just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified, they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: “I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward” [Ps. 118:112], and of Moses the Apostle says, that he “looked to the reward” [Heb. 11:26].” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 11)
For the sake of the argument, let’s presume that the phrase applied to the sacrament of Baptism. Since Christ cannot command impossibilities, if the Sacrament of Baptism is made impossible, then Christ’s command to be baptized by water wouldn’t apply, thus faith, desire, and contrition suffices.
Trent’s statement wouldn’t be contradicted at all by Baptism of Desire. Rather, it would support it.
According to Dimond’s argument, since Trent placed under anathema what he thinks the Catechism teaches, he must necessarily conclude that the Roman Catechism is heretical, and the authors, editors, and promulgators are anathematized!
Dimond continues…
“Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively.”
So let’s get this straight. Dimond believes that the Catechism is heretical. Dimond is also implying heretical books which contain formal heresy, if taken as a whole teaches accurately and effectively the Catholic Faith, it would be an excellent tool for instructing the faithful. This is outrageous!
The Council of Trent warned against such nonsense.
Continuing…
“But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makesstatement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament ofBaptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.”
Now Dimond must conclude that the Catechism is contradicting itself. So not only is it heretical, it’s contradictory, but that’s okay with Dimond, because taken as a whole this heretical and contradictory book is an excellent tool for the Faith.
“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among theSacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divineand admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark thatall are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is thesignification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. Theuniversal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior hasdeclared in these words: Unless a man be born again of waterand the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God(Jn. 3:5).”373
This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism.”
Dimond misunderstands the nuance. Necessity of means verses necessity of precept. Go back to part 1 of these articles.
“It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.”
Baptism of Desire doesn’t imply that John 3:5 is to be understood figuratively. Again, the Catechism quotes John 3:5 four times, and then teaches Baptism of Desire.
“Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity ofBaptism, pp. 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 LAWOF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD,EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated toGod through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christiansor infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction.Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of theGospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the HolyGhost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”374
This clearly means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!”
What is the law of Baptism as established by Our Lord that extends to all? What are the conditions? What are the nuances? How does the Church teach and explain it? This is what Dimond ignores. He rejects the Roman Catechism’s explanation and must hold that the Catechism is contradicting itself.
“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into thekingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansingit by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptismmay be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in theword.”375
The Catechism of Trent also teaches that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be deferred.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in themysteries of faith.”376
The customary delay in baptizing adults that we see in history was for the instruction and the testing of the catechumens. This delay was not because it was believed that adults could be saved without baptism, as proven already in the section on Pope St. Siricius.”
Below is the letter by Pope St. Siricius to Himerius (385).
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.” (Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J. and Fr. Josef Neuner, S.J., The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)
The above quote by Pope Siricius doesn’t deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire or refute through implication that it is impossible to be saved by Baptism of Desire.
Persons in necessity desiring water Baptism who die without it may very well be lost, because Baptism of Desire is not accomplished by merely desiring it.
There’s always the fear that those who die without Baptism, may be lost because perfect contrition, or some other requirement that God wants in the person, may be absent. Baptism of desire is something God does to the person.
Pope Siricius says delaying such infants or men “may lead to the ruin of our souls.” In other words, it would be a sin to delay them.
The second part of the quotation reiterates the first part. Perfect contrition may not be present with their faith, and Baptism is their only help to bring them to salvation since perfect contrition is not required with the sacraments.
Dimond must assume that the Roman Catechism is contradicting itself, because three paragraphs before the Catechism states, “In Case of Necessity Adults May be Baptized at Once” it gives the initial phrase, “should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness?”
The doctrine of Baptism of Desire requires repentance of sins, or perfect contrition, faith, and desire. The Sacrament of Baptism doesn’t require perfect contrition.
Continuing…
“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: ‘Holy writers are unanimous insaying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gaveHis Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to besaved.’377.”
Baptism can’t be rejected. That’s a given. Baptism of Desire is not a doctrine that rejects the fact that Baptism is obligatory.
“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism ‐ Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all,was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to allfor salvation.”378
Notice that the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all.”
Dimond can’t understand very simple concepts.
Water is within the reach of all for drinking, cleaning, washing, and for baptizing. That doesn’t mean that everyone can always get a drink, clean or wash, or in this case, get baptized. The whole point of the pertinent phrase, “should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters…” is to explain precisely the opposite of Dimond’s assertion.
The fact that Dimond would use this argument is astounding!
“Also notice that the Catechism declares that the sacrament is necessary for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism.”
Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation. All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Again, the sacrament is necessary for all for salvation under ordinary conditions and circumstances. The Roman Catechism gives a case of an extraordinary circumstance where the sacrament is not necessary for salvation. The only theory contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church is Dimond’s rejection of Baptism of Desire which is taught over and over again by Christ’s Catholic Church through the Roman Catechism and the Code of Law.
“Moreover, the Catechism also teaches that Christians are distinguished from non–Christians by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects areexemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, andthe Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess thefaith.”379
Those who assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.”
Since the Catechism also teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation “should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters,” which falls under the rubric “baptism of desire,” Dimond must conclude that the Catechism contradicts itself.
However, we do distinguish Christians from non-Christians by Baptism, but not Baptism alone. Christians are also distinguished from those who do not profess the faith. Both unbaptized and those who don’t hold the faith aren’t considered Christians while they’re still living. Baptism of Desire and Blood brings one into the Fold at death. At that point, they would be considered saints. We have saints from Baptism of Blood.
“Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism ‐ Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all,was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to allfor salvation.”
Dimond quotes again the same line from the Catechism implying that since water is in reach of all, it “excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all” in the last part of his book to justify his assertions.We’ve seen how this may be the silliest argument of all. Why anyone would even bother listening to Dimond after using such a ridiculous argument is beyond me.
Dimond wouldn’t have gone to all this trouble to show us what he thinks are errors in the Catechism unless his point is to let us know that he believes the Catechism is heretical on those two pertinent phrases.
It’s true that the Roman Catechism didn’t possess the chrism of infallibility when it was written. However, the universal and ordinary teaching of the Church, which is infallible, has guaranteed that the Roman Catechism is the standard and norm of the Catholic Faith, which necessarily means that it contains no formal heresy.
JOHN A. MCHUGH, O. P. and CHARLES J. CALLAN, O. P. wrote (excerpts and emphasizes mine):
“The Roman Catechism is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it enjoys a unique authority among manuals…it was issued by the express command of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into the vernacular of different nations to be used as a standard source for preaching. Moreover it subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs. Not to speak of Pius IV who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII, as Possevino testifies, so highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written in accordance with its contents. In his Bull of June 14, 1761, Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has been highly praised by all….that the Roman Pontiffs offered this work to pastors as a norm of Catholic teaching and discipline so that there might be uniformity and harmony in the instructions of all…Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical Letter of September 8, 1899, to the Bishops and clergy of France,…wrote: “This work is remarkable at once for the richness and exactness of its doctrine, and for the elegance of its style; it is a precious summary of all theology, both dogmatic and moral. He who understands it well, will have always at his service those aids by which a priest is enabled to preach with fruit, to acquit himself worthily of the important ministry of the confessional and of the direction of souls, and will be in a position to refute the objections of unbelievers.”
Likewise Pius X in his Encyclical Acerbo nimis of April 15, 1905, declared that adults, no less than children, need religious instruction, especially in these days. And hence he prescribed that pastors and all who have care of souls should give catechetical instruction to the faithful in simple language, and in a way suited to the capacity of their hearers, and that for this purpose they should use the Catechism of the Council of Trent…
Besides the Supreme Pontiffs who have extolled and recommended the Catechism, so many Councils have enjoined its use that it would be impossible here to enumerate them all. Within a few years after its first appearance great numbers of provincial and diocesan synods had already made its use obligatory. Of these the Preface to the Paris edition of 1893 mentions eighteen held before the year 1595. In five different Councils convened at Milan St. Charles Borromeo ordered that the Catechism should be studied in seminaries, discussed in the conferences of the clergy, and explained by pastors to their people on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments. In short, synods repeatedly prescribed that the clergy should make such frequent use of the Catechism as not only to be thoroughly familiar with its contents, but almost have it by heart.”
Pope St. Pius X went on to say in his Decree “Quem singulari” of the Congregation on the Sacraments in Aug 8, 1910:
“For first confession and for first communion a full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. But the child will be obliged afterwards to learn gradually the whole catechism in accord with his intelligence.” (D 2138)
Two paragraphs later Pope St. Pius X tell us what catechism should be learned in whole: the“Roman Catechism.” (D 140)
Based off the Roman Catechism, Pope St. Pius X promulgated his own catechism which teaches Baptism of Desire. The letter of promulgation by Pope St. Pius X can be read here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/letters/documents/hf_px_let_19121018_catechismo_it.html
The Most Rev. Bishop George Hay and Rev. Michael Müller C.SS.R., two of the greatest teachers of the Catholic religion in the last 200 hundred plus years, both taught Baptism of Desire in their respected catechisms, which were based off the Roman Catechism.
Because the Roman Catechism is not an infallible document doesn’t imply that it can be formally heretical. The Catholic Church has infallibly taught that the Roman Catechism is the standard by which the Faith is to be believed and understood.
Dimond holds that the Catholic Church has promulgated an extremely heretical and contradictory book for Catholic instruction of priests and faithful for 500 years!
NOT A SINGLE CHURCH AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER HAS EVER CONDEMNED, CRITICIZED OR CORRECTED THE CATECHISM IN ALL THAT TIME until 2 brothers born in the 1970’s who made themselves monks called into question and pointed out that it’s heretical because of their PERSONAL and NOVEL INTERPRETATION of the canons of Trent and the erroneous doctrine that God can’t save a soul apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions.
THE DIMONDS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE MARTIN LUTHER’S OF TODAY.
I planned on doing a whole series of these articles, but after going through the buffoonery of Dimond’s book, I’ve changed my mind. I have better things to do with my life than wasting my time answering point by point of sheer idiocy.
“I planned on doing a whole series of these articles, but after going through the buffoonery of Dimond’s book, I’ve changed my mind. I have better things to do with my life than wasting my time answering point by point of sheer idiocy.”
Big words for a man who refused a second debate with Br. Peter Dimond. If you really think you know the doctrine and he doesn’t, why don’t you debate him again and prove him wrong?
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve explained very clearly why I wouldn’t have any communication with such people, much less a public debate, and people continue to ask me why? I guess people can read the truth they don’t want to see, so they want to hear someone tell them lies that conforms to their thinking.
Will,
I listened to Br. Peter Dimond’s 10 minute you tube video (he just posted a day or two ago) trying to expose Steve. Steve must be getting to him because why would Br. Peter spend his time making a you tube video and then not even revealing Steve’s FULL NAME to the public if he thinks he crushed him so well? Plus Br. Peter lied in his video saying Steve (his mysterious opponent) believes in salvation outside the church when Steve made it clear over and over that he didn’t. If Br. Peter were honest and really believed Steve was wrong he could just say that Steve has a misunderstanding of the Catholic Faith is possibly under a heresy and try to correct him cordially. Does Br. Peter ever do this to people who disagree with him. NO!!! He declares them anathematized on every condition. It is clear that if Br. Peter doesn’t get his rules in debating somebody (interrupting people when they are trying to clarify something when its their turn to talk, jumble the meanings to words that others say, etc) the way he wants them (which he has made clear in his emails) then he can’t debate any other way because he knows he can lose at times. Br. Peter would never admit he is wrong.It would destroy his ego. Is that not obvious?
Like I’ve said why doesn’t Br. Peter get out of his trailer and go in the public eye where he is out of his comfort zone and debate somebody, not set up to his standards and where its fair to both parties? He can’t because he is the coward, and I agree that Steve shouldn’t play his game when debating him. It might actually make Steve look bad if he recorded then next debate and interrupted Br. Peter while he would talk and then make a you tube of his own. Revenge is the Lord’s and I believe that if you or anybody else has enough time to listen to a 1 hr and 10 min video then you also should have enough time to read everything that has been going on through Steve’s website with Br. Peter including the comments. At least Steve let’s you and other persons who disagree with him make a comment on his website. You can’t make any comments on Br. Peter’s you tube video because I’m sure Br. Peter knows that it might start up a written debate which he might lose unless of course he edits what is being said.
Anyways, I’m done with my writing to you Will.
Justin where are you? Are you on the fence about things? You’re the one that started this all up.
This is what i thought when it came down to reality, that if BOD is a HERESY, then there’s no way around the fact that the Church has been letting a HERESY be taught to everyone from the very own Roman Catechism, which has always been highly praised, recommended and appoved, for centuries. Not to mention that it is the official Catechism of the Church. Anyone who picks up the Catechism and starts reading it will eventually come upon the passage and be taught a heresy and then believe in it. That never sounded right to me.
The Dimond’s mantra, “oh it’s not infallible”, always sounded bad to me too. Like as if they mean, oh it’s not infallible, so it can have outright heresies and grave errors too.
But having said that, i also know that the Catechism has some incorrect things to say about when the soul is formed, if i remember correctly. I think it says somewhere that the soul was infused in the fetus days after conception, instead of immediately, and things like that. I think St. Thomas taught that too.
SPERAY REPLIES: Are you sure that souls aren’t created and infused sometime after conception?
I know that recently I myself was arguing that the Catechism ruled out any possibility of being saved without the Sacrament, in the quoted passages, and that it was contradicting itself, but re-examining the whole thing again, it’s clear now that it is as you say, so i have totally recanted anything i have said about the matter.
But since i came to the conclusion that the baptisms can’t be heretical, which was a while ago, i never believed the Catechism was teaching heresy, i just believed it was contradictory.
When i was arguing with you i didn’t believe it was heretical either of course, just a mistake. But now i have abandoned that as well.
SPERAY REPLIES: Are you sure that souls aren’t created and infused sometime after conception?
I don’t know about this, but from what i saw, i think it was that souls are infused the very moment of conception, because the very moment of conception is when “life begins” isn’t it?
SPERAY REPLIES: We know that stem cells have life, sperm have approx. 6 day life span, eggs have approx. 2 day life span, but none of them have a soul, yet they most certainly have life. What type of life is the question. Well, traditionally, it has been understood that “Rational Life” doesn’t begin until sometime after conception and formation of the body.
Our Lady tells Mary of Agreda:
“For the formation and growth of other
human bodies, according to the natural order, many
days are necessary in order to organize and fit them for
the reception of the rational soul. Thus for a man-
child are required forty and for females eighty days,
more or less, according to the natural heat and disposi
tion of the mothers. In the formation of the virginal
body of Mary the Almighty accelerated the natural time
and that, which according to the natural rule required
eighty days, was accomplished in Her within seven days.”
A few paragraphs later:
“The day of the Immaculate Conception, which the Church
now celebrates, is not the day of her first conception,
when the body alone was conceived, but it is the day of
her second Conception or the infusion of her soul.”
I follow the traditional point of view.
Yes, i went back and located where it was that i heard about this and it was in one of the Dimonds videos, the one called “The Trent Catechism and “Baptism of Desire””, because they obviously want to say that the Catechism has many other supposed errors.
Yes life starts from the moment of fertilization, so the only question is, has the Church defined that the very moment human life happens, God infuses the soul?
Well of course we just saw that this is not the traditional thinking, so what Bob Dimond did was that he pulled a quote from the Council of Vienne that says this:
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree #1: “Moreover, with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”
So what Bob is saying is “well this Council dogmatically defined that the soul is the form of the human body, therefore as soon as there is human life, which is at fertilization, the soul has to be already infused! So of course the Catechism is wrong on this one.”
Here’s the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGMuOIazVY
He starts talking about this at the 6:13 mark.
He obviously mixes when life starts and when the soul is infused, and makes it seem that they both have to be united at the same time, otherwise there cannot really be a true human body, since it doesn’t have a soul.
That’s why at the end he says that the Catechism actually teaches that life doesn’t start at fertilization.
I don’t agree with him of course but you should check it out.
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond twists the council’s teaching like he does with everything else. It’s obvious what the Council is saying and what the Catechism is saying, and there is no contradiction, except in the mind of Dimond. The Council actually supports the Catechism and Mary of Agreda’s book. This is what I’m talking about with his buffoonery and sheer nonsense.
The Synod of Vienne defined the soul is infused into the body at the moment of conception.
SPERAY REPLIES: It did no such thing. In fact, it’s the opposite. The soul is the form of the body. Since the body is not formed at conception, then the soul is not yet created and infused at conception.
Pope Saint Pius V ordered the Roman Catechism. He never partook in its composition.
SPERAY REPLIES: He promulgated it, end of story. Popes can’t promulgate heresy. The Catholic Church can’t promulgate heresy. The fact that you and the Dimonds say such blasphemy makes you heretics.
It disclaims inerrancy in its own introduction. He promulgated only its Official Statements which – as the Dogma does – leave no room for “Three Baptisms” or “pre-existing” soul. It only takes some honesty to know life begins at conception. The Dimonds didn’t twist the Dogma. You just deny the Dogma. All pro-aborts are pro-aborts because they all deny this Dogma. You might as well be a pro-abort.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong! The Dimonds twist the dogma as I demonstrated but worse they accuse the Catholic Church of promulgating heresy by law and catechism. The Church also condemns contraception and aborting the early stage of a fetus which has not yet received a rational soul would be contraception. It’s evil as hell! You’re worse than the pro-aborts by claiming the Church promulgates heresy.
Steve Speray said:
“Twice, I asked Dimond point blank if the pertinent phrases in the Roman Catechism are heretical and he refused to answer the question.”
Steve,
What was the context of these questions you posed to Dimond? I don’t recall hearing that in the debate. If it’s there, please indicate the time mark. If not, please elaborate on the context.
Brother Dimond said in a written letter on his site, that you asked questions (unspecified) that he was willing to answer but only in the context of a debate. So when he “refused to answer the question”, exactly how did he refuse? Did he refuse by deferring the answer to the context of a debate? In fairness to him, you should specify exactly how he refused and exactly what he said.
Thanks.
Mike he asked them in the email exchange as they were getting ready to debate the 2nd time but Br. Peter ignored the question. Go back and read the email exchange posted on this website.
Mike,
Are you a Feeneyite? Yes or no.
Loaded word. Please be specific.
In any case, I don’t see the relevancy of your question. Please explain.
SPERAY REPLIES: I think Rob is simply asking do you believe that a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism. I think the relevancy to his question has to do with your comments. What are you driving at with them? Will you concede to any points thus far? Are you searching for answers, or have you already made up your mind, or perhaps just wanting attention?
Speray asks:
“I think Rob is simply asking do you believe that a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism. I think the relevancy to his question has to do with your comments. What are you driving at with them? Will you concede to any points thus far?”
I respond:
I will concede to the following point:
“That Steven Speray believes that the Catechism of the Council of Trent could not have promulgated any error regarding the Sacrament of Baptism. Anyone who says so is __________.”
Do I have this right? Please fill in the blank. I’m not being a jerk here – if you confirm that I got this right, then I will then proceed further with my next point.
SPERAY REPLIES: I didn’t say any error. I said formal heresy. Anyone who says so is “REJECTING THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.”
Thanks.
The Church, up to the reign of Pius XII, never condemned BoD/BoB. Feeney, however, was warned by the Holy Office, as far as I recall.
The Angel of Fatima, in 1916, gave *Holy Communion* to Lucy, Francisco, Jacinta. The necessary graces for BoD/BoB, are likewise not limited to ordinary channels – but here we let God judge, quite naturally.
Regarding the Feeney affair – I recommend you read sections 26-31 of this book…..
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Section26
Regarding the Angel of Fatima – the angel was distributing Holy Communion (like a Deacon), as opposed to consecrating the host. So the angel was not a minister of the sacrament. The one performing a baptism is the minister of a sacrament. Thus, one cannot make the leap from the Angel of Fatima to BOD.
SPERAY REPLIES: You missed the point Michael was making, which is there are ordinary and extraordinary channels, circumstances, etc. You were taking Michael’s argument to place he never went. As for the 1949 letter, is was never placed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the publication where all official acts of the Church are registered. Without this registration, the letter simply does not exist officially in the Church. This is how I understand it. However, you don’t see Fr. Feeney rejecting Baptism of Desire, either. Fr. Feeney believed in Baptism of Desire in a different sense. He held that a man can be justified without water baptism, but wouldn’t go to heaven or hell. What say you Mike? Can a man be justified without water baptism? Do you reject the law of the Church and the Roman Catechism as it plainly states?
Speray says:
“You missed the point Michael was making, which is there are ordinary and extraordinary channels, circumstances, etc. You were taking Michael’s argument to place he never went.”
I say:
No I didn’t. The Angel of Fatima was distributing pre-sanctified Holy Eucharist. The angel was not acting as a minister of the sacrament, however. The case of the Angel of Fatima proves one instance of an extraordinary channel for the distribution of pre-sanctified Holy Eucharist. The Angel of Fatima case cannot be used as a springboard to justify “mysterious distribution of graces”, since the angel was not “distributing graces” but rather sacramental matter.
SPERAY REPLIES: Your explanation proves that you missed the point. It’s not about angels distributing graces or anything like that. It’s about how God can work through extraordinary means because of extraordinary circumstances. That’s all. God can do what He wills, how He wills.
Speray says:
“What say you Mike? Can a man be justified without water baptism? Do you reject the law of the Church and the Roman Catechism as it plainly states?”
I say:
I leave these questions for your next debate with Bro. Peter. Also, your last sentence here is of the “begging the question” fallacy type.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s not going to any further communication between Dimond and myself. I explain why in past comments and a post. Now, why don’t you answer the question? The last sentence is simply asking you whether you reject the law of the Church and the Roman Catechism as it plainly states. How is it begging the question? You seem afraid to come right out and admit what you believe.
Speray says:
“Your explanation proves that you missed the point. It’s not about angels distributing graces or anything like that. It’s about how God can work through extraordinary means because of extraordinary circumstances. That’s all. God can do what He wills, how He wills.”
I say:
But there is a huge chasm (leap) between the extraordinary granting of specific gifts/graces and the extraordinary granting of salvation. The former no one denies, whilst the latter is disputed, The Angel of Fatima conforms to the former, whilst “baptism of desire” or “saved at death” conforms to the latter. Bottom line: one can’t make this leap based on the case of the Angel of Fatima – it simply is not justifiable.
Also, G_d does not express His Will arbitrarily or without perfect Divine Justice. Examples:
G_d could have saved all mankind by fiat.
Jesus could have undergone a far less severe Passion.
G_d could give all people a clear vision of Heaven and Hell while still alive.
Nothing “loaded” about it, Mike…unless by loaded, you mean, “I am one, but I just don’t want to give a direct answer to a direct question.”
I am a man who believes that talk is cheap; but when it comes to money, that’s where the rubber hits the road….So here goes: I will bet that you are one (that is, a Feeneyite: one who denies the salvific efficacy of Baptism of Blood and Desire; or, if you prefer, one who holds to or agrees with the “Dimonds” of Most Holy Family Monastery, on this matter. ”
If I am wrong, I will send $20 to Mr. Speray who can forward it unto you.
If I am correct, you have to forward me only $5 (Five dollars).
That’s how confident I am.
Care to take the wager? If you are not one, then you reply; “No; I believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as taught by the Baltimore Catechism.”
Then I lose. And you win. But be truthful, Mike,
Rob says:
Nothing “loaded” about it [“Feeneyite” label], Mike…unless by loaded, you mean, “I am one, but I just don’t want to give a direct answer to a direct question.”
I say:
Actually it is loaded word/label – so in fact you were not asking a “direct”, parsed question. And here’s the proof that it’s not just as simple as asking someone “Are you a Feeneyite?”……from the typed words of Steven Speray himself:
“Fr. Feeney believed in Baptism of Desire in a different sense. He held that a man can be justified without water baptism, but wouldn’t go to heaven or hell.”
Steven here is correctly stating Feeney’s specific position – that he believed that “baptism of desire” can (somehow) justify a person, but not result in their salvation. Thus one must be very specific in what they mean mean by “Feeneyism” (i.e. EENS, except for “BOD” but a “BOD” that is non-salvific, but can result in justification.).
More importantly, if asking someone “Are you a Feeneyite?” is such a “direct question”, then why do you go on to say this:
“…a Feeneyite: one who denies the salvific efficacy of Baptism of Blood and Desire; or, if you prefer, one who holds to or agrees with the “Dimonds” of Most Holy Family Monastery, on this matter.”
If “Feeneyism” is so clear, why mention MHFM as some kind of alternative to a “Feeneyite”? Do you consider MHFM “Feeneyites”? Thus your qualifying comment here clearly indicates your original question is not a straightforward, stand-alone question – as I correctly pointed out by calling “Feeneyite” a “loaded word”. Thus, your own qualifying comment (and Steven’s as well) proves the legitimacy of my original response to your loaded question.
Mike: Why won’t you take me up on my challenge?
Is that a “loaded” question, Mike?
I’ll up the ante for you: $50.00….
I’ll make it easy: Pretend like we’re in a courtroom, you’re on the witness stand, and an attorney queries you: “Do you agree with what the Baltimore Catechism teaches about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as being true Catholic doctrine?”
If someone were to ask me that question, I would reply, “Yes”.
Et tu, Mike?
Rob says:
“I’ll make it easy: Pretend like we’re in a courtroom, you’re on the witness stand, and an attorney queries you: “Do you agree with what the Baltimore Catechism teaches about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as being true Catholic doctrine?””
I say:
So are you withdrawing your original question (“Are you a Feeneyite?”) which you said was a “direct question”?
Also, please cite the actual “doctrine” you are referencing. The Baltimore Catechism should not be used for this purpose (I think Speray would agree with me on this point). Please reference the “most authoritative source” for “BOD/BOB” that you can. Please include the full citation and text.
(Also, I’ve never seen a Baltimore Catechism that actually claims that BOD or BOB is “true Catholic doctrine.”)
All; He couldn’t take the challenge. When you stand up to these people, they invariably back down. I knew he wouldn’t take the wager….when I bet, I never plan on betting on a losing venture. That’s why I’m rich.
Rob says:
“All; He couldn’t take the challenge. When you stand up to these people, they invariably back down. I knew he wouldn’t take the wager….when I bet, I never plan on betting on a losing venture. That’s why I’m rich.”
I say:
Who’s backing down? As I requested, cite something “authoritative” on the matter – not the Baltimore Catechism – which you would even be forced to admit is not a primary source – but an attempt at being a summary/guide of pre-existing church teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: Just answer whether you believe a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!
But I’ll even spoon-feed it to you. I suppose you concur with Steven Speray that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is sufficiently authoritative on BOD (as it explicitly teaches it). Yes/No? If yes, I challenge you to make the same claim that I asked Steven to – namely this:
“That I, __________, believe that the Catechism of the Council of Trent could not have promulgated any error regarding the Sacrament of Baptism. Anyone who says so is __________.”
SPERAY REPLIES: I’VE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY TEACHING OF THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT THAT THE ROMAN CATECHISM IS THE NORM AND STANDARD OF THE FAITH. THIS MEANS THAT IT CAN’T BE FORMALLY HERETICAL. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS FORMALLY HERETICAL? ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION. IT’S NOT A LOADED QUESTION.
(You can modify this statement as you like to fit your exact belief.)
It appears that this is the “line in the sand” which Steven draws “proving” BOD must be true because the Catechism of the Council of Trent could not have promulgated error (i.e. BOD) on the Sacrament of Baptism, since it was written soon after the Council ended and was “promulgated” by “centuries of Popes.”
So here you go – no homework or “digging” for you. Just state why you think BOD “must be true” in a single sentence. I’ve provided a pre-fabbed statement for you. Endorse it, modify it, or make your own.
SPERAY REPLIES: BOD IS TRUE BECAUSE THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY TEACHING OF THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT IT.
P.S.
The reason my challenge to you is relevant (using your “courtroom” analogy), is that you have yet to establish where exactly BOD is established as Church teaching. So it is not permissible to ask me about “BOD as official church teaching” until you cite your PRIMARY source for “BOD as official church teaching.”
And to be generous and for the sake of argument, I’ll allow you to cite the Catechism of the Council of Trent (written soon after the Council) but not the Baltimore Catechism (written over 300 years later). All you have to do is issue a statement, that you will stand by, about the authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent in regards to Baptism. Simple.
Steve,
So do you reject the 1949 Protocol letter, Suprema Haec Sacra? Do you believe there are problems with it, or do you think it is 100% orthodox?
SPERAY REPLIES: It doesn’t really matter what I think since it’s not an official letter of the Church. My mere opinion is that the letter is poorly written and confuses the subject. LIke I said in the phone conversation with Dimond, we may say something incorrect, but mean it correctly. That’s all. Again, it doesn’t really matter though.
Well, the people at novusordowatch.org and almost every other sedevacantist who believes in BOD/BOB, im sure, claim that this really is an authoritative decree from the Holy Office, and that to reject it is a mortal sin.
They say it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t published in the AAS, and that just because something isn’t published there doesn’t mean that it is not authoritative, and that nowhere does it say that something has to be published there to be authoritative or binding.
The letter itself says Pope Pius XII supposedly approved of it.
Now, I still find it hard to believe that such a letter really is authoritative, and that Pius XII approved of it, since i think he probably wouldn’t have, because it clearly contradicts what the Pope said in his encyclical and twists his words, and the letter is supposedly quoting and referring to the encyclical.
There is a good video out there which clearly exposes this letter and shows how it contradicts what the Pope said in Mystici Corporis Christi.
SPERAY REPLIES: What are the others saying that we must believe in the letter? Baptism of desire? So we do. I just don’t think the letter is written correctly in explaining it. Am I being disobedient somehow for saying so?
I just read the letter again carefully and you’re right: it’s confusing and it doesn’t really explain anything well because it doesn’t even make specific distinctions. It had to be more detailed. It needs more clarification and it certainly didn’t even quote correctly what the Pope says but of course now we can’t do anything about it.
Nevermind.
I did want to ask you again about the 1917 Code though.
And just to clarify: i just want to see how it can possibly be correct in what it says about material presence in non-Catholic stuff!
Tell me: do you seriously not see anything wrong at all with canon 1258?
Let’s quote the canon again:
1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 1258. At funerals of non-Catholics, at their marriages, and similar solemnities, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal, passive or merely material presence on account of a civil office or for the purpose of showing respect to a person may be tolerated for a grave reason…”
First, how in the world can there be no danger of perversion or scandal if a Catholic goes to such a thing? Does it mean that this can only apply in a case in which other Catholics don’t know that such a person did this? If it is done in total secrecy? Clandestine? I highly doubt that’s what it meant.
Second, this is putting human respect above God’s law.
Look at this:
Original Rheims New Testament, 1582, Annotation on 2 John 1:10: “10.
Receive him not. Though in such times and places where the community or most part be infected, necessity often forceth the faithful to converse with such in worldly affairs, to salute them, to eat and speak with them, and the Church by decree of Council, for the more quietness of timorous
consciences provideth, that they incur not excommunication or other censures for communicating in worldly affairs with any in this kind, except they be by name excommunicated or declared to be Heretics: yet even in worldly conversation and secular acts of our life, we must avoid them as much as we may, because their familiarity is many ways contagious and noisome to good men, namely to the simple: but in matter of religion, in praying, reading their books, hearing their sermons, PRESENCE AT THEIR SERVICE, partaking of their Sacraments, and ALL other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great damnable sin to deal with them.”
The Sincere Christian, Archbishop George Hay, 1787: …all participation, all fellowship, all communication with false religions, is here expressly forbidden by the word of God…. Wherefore, whatever arguments may be brought from…worldly motives, from interest, gaining favor, liberality of sentiment, sociality, curiosity, levity, gayety, or the like, to induce us to join in, or partake of any religious duty with those of a false religion, though but in appearance only, let us look upon all such arguments as vain
deceit and worldly wisdom: and let us oppose to all such reasons, this one argument: God has expressly forbidden it; therefore no human power can make it lawful!”
“I have not sat with the council of vanity: neither will I go in with the doers of unjust things. I have hated the assembly of the malignant; and with the wicked I will not sit.” (Ps. 25:4-5)
“From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.” (1 Thes. 5:22)
Catholic commentary on Lk. 17:2: “We [Catholics] must be ready to undergo the most excruciating torments, rather than cause any scandal to our neighbour.”
Original Douay commentary on Dan. 3:6: “(b) …Now in England personal presence at heretical service or sermon is a distinctive sign of conformity to the protestants’ pretended religion; because such presence is there exacted for this purpose.”
Catholic commentary on Dan. 3: “Ver. 5. Offering incense [was] sometimes considered as marks of idolatry; so being present at the sermons and churches of Protestants was a sign of joining in their communion, being required for that purpose.”
Pope Pius IX, Graves Ac Diuturnae, 1875: “4. We think it is Our duty to repeat this public declaration now and to request you to preserve the unity of faith among your faithful by every possible means…You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. They should TOTALLY shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church’s children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice.”
So then, i dont see how this can be reconciled.
You can’t seriously tell me there’s nothing wrong with it at all and expect me to close my eyes to this.
What i quoted condemns even passive and material presence, which is exactly what the Code allowed.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOUR POINTS DON’T APPLY AT ALL. I’LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN IN DEPTH LATER. FOR NOW, LOOK AT THE LAW CLOSELY ON BOTH PARTS, NOT JUST THE SECOND PART THAT YOU PROVIDED, AND READ WHAT IT STATES AND THE COMMENTARY THAT I PROVIDED.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOUR POINTS DON’T APPLY AT ALL. I’LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN IN DEPTH LATER.
Ok.
FOR NOW, LOOK AT THE LAW CLOSELY ON BOTH PARTS, NOT JUST THE SECOND PART THAT YOU PROVIDED, AND READ WHAT IT STATES AND THE COMMENTARY THAT I PROVIDED.
I already have, and it appears contradictory.
How can you profess your faith (canon 1325) while participating passively at non-Catholic services and weddings?
SPERAY REPLIES: THIS IS THE REV. AUGUSTINE’S COMMENTARY ON THE SUBJECT THAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED.
2: permits a passive or merely material assistance at funerals, weddings and similar festivals. What does that assistance involve or admit? Concerning funerals the decisions are quite distinct. No religious act or ritual participation is permitted. Hence Catholics are not supposed to recite public prayers or carry torches or candles, etc., for the souls of deceased non-Catholics. 28 At weddings there is hardly more than a mere passive assistance, even for witnesses. 29 In Japan and other pagan countries, where at funerals the pagan priests are first called in to perform their rites, the faithful must abstain from any participation in these ceremonies, but may bury their dead according to their own ritual. 30
Civilis offtcii vel honoris causa means civil duty or respect due to the dead or to the person who is the object of the ceremony at a wedding or similar festivity, for instance, the birthday of a ruler s son or a thanksgiving celebration. When a non-Catholic ruler dies, the clergy may assist in a body, outside the church, at the funeral procession, but without sacred vestments, i. e., without stole and surplice, although in cassock, when no scandal is given or when it may be removed. 31 At the coronation of King Edward VII his Catholic subjects were allowed to enter Westminster Abbey because of the personal presence of the King, but in India Catholics were not permitted to enter the temples of non-Catholics because the King was not present. Besides, Catholics were permitted to sing the Te Deum, but not the solemn Mass, 32 in their own churches. If a non-Catholic relative or a good friend of a Catholic pastor dies, is the latter allowed to assist at the funeral ? He may do so, but is not allowed to wear the insignia, i. e., surplice and stole, and must take no active part in the ceremonies of the non-Catholic rite. 33
Difficulties may arise concerning cooperation in the divine services of Catholics who are employed by non-Catholics as singers or organists. Although we could find no specific decision with regard to Catholic singers at non-Catholic services, it is evident that the Church cannot tolerate such a formal cooperation, for to that it would certainly amount. Besides, if it is forbidden for a Catholic to play the organ at non-Catholic services which has been formally decided 84 it naturally follows that Catholics may not sing at such functions. The Church has been more lenient lately with regard to admitting non-Catholics as singers and organists at Catholic services. Thus, in 1889, the Holy Office wished the abuse to be eliminated as soon as possible, in 1906 it made a concession for Bulgaria, in favor of sisterhoods whose non-Catholic pupils were admitted to sing in their chapels. 35
It’s interesting that you bring this up Antonio (regarding not going to non Catholic services). The Dimond Brothers do this very thing by going to the una cum Mass in the Byzantine Rite united to their Antopope Francis. I know your against this Antonio but I wrote this to wake up their followers to facts.
excuse my typos
Yes, they are complete hypocrites and have no shame.
The Dimonds and all SedeVacantist leaders are shills. (Look up the conspiracy definition of the word “shill” if you don’t know what that means.) The “CMRI” vocally accept the “SSPX” and the “SSPV” within their communion. The “SSPV” vocally accept the “CMRI” and “SSPX” within their communion. The “SSPX” vocally accept the “FSSP” within their communion. The “FSSP” accept the “Novus Ordo” within their communion. They’re all false “opposition”.
You’re a shill as you have proved to us with your diabolical blasphemy against the Catholic Church. Be gone with you satan!
You’re just another hypocritical crypto-“Vatican 2″ist AntiPapolatrous shill.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re just a hypocrite and satanic know-nothing.
You worship men who tickle your own itching ears.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope! I don’t worship men, but you do. You worship yourself.
You resort to “argumentum” ad hominem because you know you can’t refute anything I just said.
SPERAY REPLIES: I didn’t use ad hominem because I answered and refuted everything you said. You didn’t answer a single question I asked because you don’t have one shred of evidence to back up your accusation.
You deny Unum Baptisma, Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia, Canonical Mission, Governance, and Jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’re a liar. I hold to all of them. BOD is not a sacrament, there would be no need to BOD if one believed in salvation outside of the church. You simply worship men who’ve told you differently. You’re such a hypocrite!
Dogma needs no “interpretation”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Apparently it does since you can’t understand it.
Dogma is the Interpretation.
SPERAY REPLIES: And yet you deny it. You accuse the Church of promulgating heresy, which is heretical. You deny the oneness of the church since you reject BOD. You deny the holiness of the church since it promulgates heresy by catechism. You’re just a heretic from hell. AND YOU CAN’T REFUTE A SINGLE ONE OF THESE POINTS!
Truth cannot contradict Truth. There’s no such thing as “invincible ignorance”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ha, INFANTS ARE INVINCIBLY IGNORANT AS THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE IMPLIES.
Catholic Faith, Saving Grace, and good works together are indispensable by necessity of means for salvation. Be gone with yourself, satan!
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree that the Catholic Faith, saving grace, and good works are necessary for salvation. Every Catholic has to believe it. You’re an idiot!
You’re a double-hypocrite for not looking in the mirror before calling someone a hypocrite. Your mock “humility” only moves liars.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. You’re the hypocrite for doing what you condemn others for doing.
You do indeed worship men. You place liable-to-being-erroneous opinions above the Magisterium.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG AGAIN. You place your private non-Catholic interpretation of the Magisterium above the Magisterium.
You did indeed use “argumentum” ad hominem. You just falsely called me a shill and falsely accused me of diabolical blasphemy against the Catholic Church just because you knew you couldn’t refute anything I just said about the “Vatican 1” AntiPopes.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong again. I refuted your false accusation and called you a shill for doing what you accuse of others of doing. The Popes you call antipopes have done nothing wrong. You have!
The “Vatican 2” AntiPopes’ defenders would just as soon say the same about you. You never even asked me any questions.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes I did. I asked you, “Where’s your proof that they [popes] knew that Rampolla was a Freemason?”
You’re a liar and a coward. You do indeed deny Unum Baptisma, Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia, Canonical Mission, Governance, and Jurisdiction. You won’t even come out and admit you believe in “salvation without Baptism” and “salvation outside (but through) the Church”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Baptism of Desire means you get inside the Church to be saved without baptism. Salvation comes by the Church, therefore, I don’t deny EENS. You really are a certified idiot!
Dogma is to be known and believed as Worded.
SPERAY REPLIES: Absolutely. I don’t add to it as you do.
Unum Baptisma means Unum Baptisma. There’s One Baptism of Water, the Blood of Redemption, and the Holy Ghost of Sanctification. “BoB”/”BoS” are manmade fables. That’s why the Magisterium never taught it and most of the Fathers rejected it.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Magisterium did teach it. As St. Alphonsus Liquori says, Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.
Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori
Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.
Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….
Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.
Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia means Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesia. If you have a guy of goodwill on a island, God sends a Missionary to Evangelize and Baptize him. To believe in “invincible ignorance” is to deny God’s OmniPotence as you do.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know what you’re talking about. If God saves someone by bringing them into the Church apart from Baptism, they still get inside the Church and are saved by the Church. You assume that God must do it your way, but you don’t see the Church saying what you say. You’re making it up to fit your private non-Catholic interpretation of the Dogma.
Your sect operates under no Governance thus has no Jurisdiction thus has no Canonical Mission thus labors in vain. No Pope, no more Bishops, no more Sacerdotes. “Epikiea” is a manmade hoax.
SPERAY REPLIES: We have bishops and I submit that they operate with jurisdiction. They continue the mission of the Church. I don’t deny it as you falsely claimed. You may believe they don’t have jurisdiction but don’t tell me that I deny it. I don’t, you do.
You adhere to these heresies because they were promulgated and implemented by modern AntiPopes you regard as “Popes”.
SPERAY REPLIES: And why do you not hold that Pope St. Pius V was an antipope for promulgating BOD? Why do you not hold that Pope Clement XIII was an antipope when he declared on June 14, 1761 in In Dominico Argo that the Roman Catechism “is far removed from every danger of error.” WHEN YOU SAY IT’S HERETICAL? ANSWER ME THAT QUESTION OR DON’T REPLY TO ME AGAIN.
The UnTraditionalist Movement is its own denial of Ecclesiastical Unity. You deny that Ecclesiastical Unity since you partake in the UnTraditionalist Movement. You deny the Ecclesiastical Sanctity since you accept “BoB”/”BoS” after the Synods of Florence and Trent condemned every idea “BoB”/”BoS” teaches.
SPERAY REPLIES: Florence and Trent teach BOD. St. Alphonsus and popes tell us so. You Feeneyites are sick!!!
I just point out the Roman Catechism disclaims inerrancy in its own introduction and Pope Saint Pius V promulgated only its Official Statements all of which leave no room for “BoB”/”BoS”. You can consider each of your “points” refuted!
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. So the pope promulgated heresy? He’s still the pope? You Feeneyites are ridiculous!!!
Infants are smarter than you want them to believe. Infants who die without Baptism go to Limbo of Hell. God keeps those of goodwill alive until Baptism. He lets some adults and infants die before Baptism because the adults were of badwill and the infants would be better off going to Limbo of Hell than Hell of Hell.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Holy Innocents are celebrated as saints for shedding their blood for Christ. Yet, if infants can go to heaven without baptism in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament makes the Old Testament greater for salvation than the New. Do you not see that your argument is blasphemous?
Catholic Faith, Saving Grace, and good works together are indispensable by necessity of means for salvation. Confirmation, Eucharist, Penitence, and Extreme Unction are necessary by necessity of Precept. Your sect denies that difference. You’re a flaming imbecile!
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. What do you think we say BOD does? You are a certified idiot!
You’re an inFidel. We used to burn guys like you back in civilized times.
SPERAY REPLIES: An infidel is someone who has not been baptized. You keep proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Please reply again and show the world how you know nothing while thinking you know everything. Take that back, you’re banned for stupidity. Don’t waste my time. Thank you for giving me a good laugh today.
SPERAY REPLIES:
“Just answer whether you believe a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!”
…and….
I’VE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY TEACHING OF THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT THAT THE ROMAN CATECHISM IS THE NORM AND STANDARD OF THE FAITH. THIS MEANS THAT IT CAN’T BE FORMALLY HERETICAL.
…and…
BOD IS TRUE BECAUSE THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY TEACHING OF THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT IT.
I reply:
O.K. Steve, I clearly understand your position, so I will answer your simple question (and also Rob’s). My answer is as follows:
“No, a person cannot be saved without the sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water Baptism).”
Please note that I adamantly (“obstinately” if you like) cling to this position, I believe in it, I profess it, and I teach it to others. Now, I ask you to please apply Church law to me and my position with all its necessary implications (as you see it).
I.E.:
Am I a formal heretic for doing so?
SPERAY REPLIES: No. It’s not a dogma. However, you do fall under some other censor of the Church.
Am I severed from the Church for doing so?
SPERAY REPLIES: If you think BOD is a heresy, then you might fall under those two anathemas of Trent I pointed out in part 2. If you don’t think that BOD is a heresy, but simply don’t think it’s true, then you wouldn’t be severed from the Church. You would be a dissenter which has other consequences to your soul such as mortal sin.
Am I teaching heresy to others?
SPERAY REPLIES: Depends on how far you take it. Simply rejecting BOD is not heresy.
etc.
Thank you.
Steve,
It’s clear that you reject my position, namely this:
“No, a person cannot be saved without the sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water Baptism).”
So, I assume you profess the opposition position:
“A person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water Baptism).”
Please confirm.
Thanks.
SPERAY REPLIES: Under extraordinary circumstances, I believe a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, just as Pope St. Pius V promulgated in the Roman Catechism, as Pope St. Pius X wrote and promulgated in his own Catechism, as Bp Hay and Rev. Muller in their catechisms, and every pope, saint, and theologian who has taught on the subject since Trent. The universal and ordinary magisterium has confirmed that a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism under extraordinary circumstances. I don’t know why you would ask me to confirm what I’ve stated over and over again. You still haven’t answered all the questions asked of you!
You stated to me, “It’s begging since your claim of “law of the Church” is disputed and yet to be established.”
The only ones who disputes the 1917 Code of law are those who are bent on rejecting the obvious teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire. Fact is the 1917 Code has been promulgated by Pope St. Benedict XV.
Please cite a single Church authority who has rejected the 1917 Code of law and why.
You never answered the question whether you reject the Roman Catechism (speaking on the relative paragraphs below).
Please cite a single Church authority who has criticized, corrected, condemned, or rejected the Roman Catechism on the relative paragraphs:
“Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…” (P. 178)…“are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (P. 179)
Steve said:
“Under extraordinary circumstances, I believe a person can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism….”
I say:
How do you square your position/statement in light of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5, On the Sacrament of Baptism (ex cathedra, infallible):
“If anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
You clearly believe that Baptism (i.e. the Sacrament of Baptism, i.e. Water Baptism) is indeed optional (i.e. not required) under “extraordinary circumstances.”
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I DON’T BELIEVE BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL. YOU CAN’T OPT OUT OF BAPTISM. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN’T CHOOSE NOT TO BE BAPTIZED WHEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU SHOULD. YOU HAVE TWISTED THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE CANON. BOD DOESN’T CONCERN THOSE WHO OPTED OUT OF BAPTISM KNOWING THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED. THE CANON DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BOD.
Some specific points to address:
1. Are Catholics free to “navigate around” clear, unambiguous and infallible “let him be anathema” decrees from the Magisterium?
SPERAY REPLIES: ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU HAVE NAVIGATED CANON 5 INTO SOMETHING THE CHURCH NEVER HAD IN MIND. NO ONE HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS CANON THE WAY YOU HAVE INTERPRETED IT UNTIL THE DIMOND’S. THAT’S A FACT!
BOD clearly does this with respect to this decree. If it is possible to do so, can you cite any “other” (non-anachronistic) examples, that pertain to sacraments?
SPERAY REPLIES: I JUST SHOWED YOU HOW IT DOES NOT! YOU HAVE SIMPLY MISAPPLIED AND MISINTERPRETED THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE CANON.
2. What is the dogmatic weight/status of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5?
SPERAY REPLIES: IT’S DOGMATIC! HOWEVER, YOUR FALSE (OR SHOULD I SAY DIMOND’S FALSE) UNDERSTANDING AND MISAPPLICATION OF THE CANON HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. IT CONTRADICTS THE UNIVERSAL AND ORDINARY TEACHING OF THE CHURCH THAT BOD IS A DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH WHICH YOU MUST BELIEVE.
3. You, by necessity, must believe that Trent, Session 7, Canon 5 is just plain wrong/flawed and should have been worded as such:
SPERAY REPLIES: WHAT IS PLAIN WRONG IS YOUR BLATANTLY FALSE MISAPPLICATION AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF CANON 5.
“If anyone saith that Baptism is optional (under ordinary circumstances) that is, not necessary (under ordinary circumstances) for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! THE ORIGINAL CANON IS PERFECT! YOU HAVE SIMPLY MISUNDERSTOOD IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED BY THE DIMOND’S RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS AGAINST BOD.
P.S.
I plan on addressing your queries to me on the Roman Catechism in a separate post – I didn’t want to crowd out the points above with that discussion. My response is forthcoming.
SPERAY REPLIES: WHY COULD YOU NOT SIMPLY ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS FIRST? SO I’M GOING TO ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME TO:
Please cite a single Church authority who has rejected the 1917 Code of law and why.
You never answered the question whether you reject the Roman Catechism (speaking on the relative paragraphs below).
Please cite a single Church authority who has criticized, corrected, condemned, or rejected the Roman Catechism on the relative paragraphs:
“Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…” (P. 178)…“are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”
Steve,
Regarding Trent, Session 7, Canon 5 – how about this – I provide my “interpretation” of it (in the most succinct way possible), and you do the same (also as succinct as possible). Then we can cross-critique and let the record reflect our respective positions and counter-arguments.
Here’s Canon 5 from Trent:
“If anyone saith that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
And here’s my “interpretation” of Canon 5:
“The Sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water baptism) is necessary for all, without exception, for salvation.”
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t have to give an interpretation. The Catholic Church has already done so. Besides the Catechism, the Council of Trent cites Augustine for this canon which comes from his “On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants.” The same saint, whom is cited as an authority for canon 5, believed that the sacrament of baptism falls under the rubric “necessity of precept” and taught that man can be saved without the sacrament of baptism.
Like I stated, you can’t opt out of baptism. You must make distinctions between “necessity of means” and “necessity of precept” and between ordinary circumstances and extraordinary circumstances.
You have created an interpretation (or should I say borrowed Dimond’s interpretation who probably borrowed it from Patrick Pollack) that adds to the canon which Trent never intended as shown by the citation of St. Augustine.
And you still haven’t answered my questions which I’ve clearly asked of you twice. I submit that you can’t do so because you have no one post-Trent that sides with your position except the Dimonds, Pollack, and few other modernists of today.
I said:
And here’s my “interpretation” of Canon 5:
“The Sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water baptism) is necessary for all, without exception, for salvation.”
Speray responded:
“You have created an interpretation (or should I say borrowed Dimond’s interpretation who probably borrowed it from Patrick Pollack) that adds to the canon which Trent never intended as shown by the citation of St. Augustine.”
I now ask Speray:
Just to be abundantly clear – you do in fact reject my (a.k.a. Dimond’s) “created” interpretation of Canon 5 (shown above), as it
a.) conflicts with the Augustinian notion of “necessity of precept”
and
b.) excludes the possibility of “baptism of desire.”
I don’t want to put words in your mouth here – so please be specific in your critique of my interpretation.
Peter Dimond is at it again. Two more videos he posted on you tube talking to himself about his new arguments against Baptism of Desire. Yet he can’t also have a public written debate write when he spends hours exposing other people, places and things, such as Francis in white.
He has so much time to create youtube videos but he has to wait to debate people at his convenience as if he doesn’t have very much time. Whatever
Br. Peters awesome video(s) refuted every point that Steve made in the exchange between him and I. I learned Catholicism because of Gods grace and the Dimond Brothers material. So naturally what happened afterward with Bro. Peter Dimond was only natural, and that’s the point, Martin you foolish little tool.
SPERAY REPLIES: Actually, Dimond didn’t refute a single iota. You didn’t answer my last personal email that dealt directly with Trent. That’s because it’s over right there. Dimond can’t understand very simple concepts and apparently Justin, you can’t either. I actually listened to Dimond’s presentation and he completely misunderstood the argument about the Summa and the Catechism. As a matter of fact, I had already answered and debunked in the comment section the very point that Dimond makes in the video. It’s laughable! He explains in the video how the Catechism is heretical and then says it’s not heretical. Seriously, if you buy into his stuff then I feel sorry for you.
It’s pretty simple Justin. Just like perfect contrition can save a Catholic in mortal sin without the sacrament of confession is a teaching of the Church (which you believe in), so to is Baptism of Desire and Blood for a person who wants to be in the Catholic Church as well. Does it happen very often? I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter as long as it is possible and the Catholic Church teaches it (which it does through its Catechisms which you cannot call heretical). The Dimond Brothers like to call people up when they are not ready and when its under their control (the email exchanges prove that). Challenge them under a controlled debate when they don’t have the freedom to interrupt and attack the opponent rudely and we see they don’t respond to the challenge. Plus they won’t do a written debate either because they know that when the opponent has the information they have that they cannot edit it to make it look like they won. If you think Br. Peter won through his own videos then as you say you are naturally inclined to believe whatever he, however he says something no matter what the cost because you’re like a hypnotized person who can think for himself. The Dimond brothers are either spiritually sick because of their pride or oppressed by a devil which exacerbates their issues.
Is this still a live web-site?
If so, I would appreciate a response to my post dated August 10, 2013 at 6:31 am.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ve made up your mind that that the Church has been teaching and promoting a heresy in Her catechisms and laws for 500 yrs. I’m not wasting my time anymore with you.
All I’m asking for is a simple interrogatory.
I ask my questions of you, you provide answers, then you can do the same, (if you want). I’m sure I’ll be able to prove my points (to a person of good will) if you just answer my questions first. Actually, I need only a few more answers from you to do so.
No name-calling – just your answers/positions on the record, and same for me (if you desire it).
SPERAY REPLIES: I’m not interested in hearing you trying to prove your point since I’ve already established that you must hold to Baptism of Desire or else you end up anathematizing yourself, not to mention that you still haven’t answered my question showing a single Church authority that has rejected, condemned, criticized, etc. baptism of desire since Trent especially from it’s own catechism. You’re more than welcome to answer your own questions hypothetically both ways and show your points.
O.K., I’ll ask you questions, and provide answers as if you are answering. (Obviously, this is a very inefficient way to do things.)
….picking up on my previous post:
And here’s my “interpretation” of Canon 5:
“The Sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water baptism) is necessary for all, without exception, for salvation.”
Speray responded:
“You have created an interpretation (or should I say borrowed Dimond’s interpretation who probably borrowed it from Patrick Pollack) that adds to the canon which Trent never intended as shown by the citation of St. Augustine.”
I now ask Speray:
Just to be abundantly clear – you do in fact reject my (a.k.a. Dimond’s) “created” interpretation of Canon 5 (shown above), as it
a.) conflicts with the Augustinian notion of “necessity of precept”
SPERAY REPLIES: It precludes the Church’s understanding of necessity of precept especially in light of the fact the Canon itself comes from Augustine’s teaching who also taught necessity of precept.
and
b.) excludes the possibility of “baptism of desire.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Dimond has added to the meaning which doesn’t apply.
Speray must answer as follows to be consistent with his prvious statements:
Speray “responds”:
“I reject your (a.k.a. Dimond’s) interpretation of Canon 5 becuase it conflicts with the Augustian notion of “necessity of precept.” Furthermore, I reject your interpretation since it excludes the possibility of baptism if desire. Anyone who agrees with this interpretation is rejecting the Roman Catechism promulgated after Trent and is anathemizing himself.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Not exactly. I reject Dimond’s interpretation because it’s novel and conflicts the Church’s teaching on Baptism of Desire. The Roman Catechism is the Church’s official understanding of Trent. Any interpretation of Trent contrary to the Roman Catechism is contrary to the Church’s interpretation. The anathema comes from the implication of rejecting Baptism of Desire and calling it heretical because by doing so, you must call funeral masses for catechumens “incentives to impiety” since such masses by the Church would lead the faithful to believe in the “heretical” baptism of desire. However, to do so would necessarily cause one to fall under the condemnation of Canon 7, session XXII of Trent. Behold, most all Catholics believe in baptism of desire precisely because of the laws, practices, and teachings by the Church.
O.K., I think we’ve boiled down the key disagreement here. You reject Dimond’s (and my) interpretation of Canon 5, namely:
“The Sacrament of Baptism (i.e. water baptism) is necessary for all, without exception, for salvation.”
However, looking at the “positive” side of things, you, Dimond and I actually agree (or essentially agree) on several important implications of Dimond’s interpretation of Canon 5. Here are several key propositions that I’m sure we all can agree to:
Proposition 1:
“One cannot simultaneously a.) subscribe to Dimond’s interpretation of Canon 5 AND b.) believe in baptism of desire. These two are mutually exclusive – it is simply not logically tenable to subscribe to both. One must chose one or the other – one cannot choose both.”
Proposition 2:
“Dimond’s interpretation of Canon 5 goes beyond the concept of necessity of precept, since Dimond’s interpretation mandates that the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means. Thus, if one subscribes to Dimond’s interpretation, then one is rejecting (or essentially rejecting) the Augustinian notion of necessity of precept in regards to sacramental Baptism (as opposed to Dimond’s necessity of means).”
Proposition 3:
“If one subscribes to Dimond’s interpretation of Canon 5, then one is rejecting (or essentially rejecting) the Roman Catechism’s teaching on baptism of desire.”
Proposition 4:
“If one subscribes to Dimond’s interpretation of Canon 5, then one is forced to admit that most officially-sanctioned catechisms have been incorrect in asserting baptism of desire as Church teaching, for about 500 years. Furthermore, one must admit that almost all theologians and even many saints have also been wrong on baptism of desire.”
I think we all can agree to these four propositions. Do you agree?
Dear Paul
Glory to Jesus and Honour to Mary.
I want to task you again on the question of BOD.I recently saw a link to a video titled:
The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects “Baptism of Desire”
There were many responses from those who watched the video that that it was a definitive refutattion of BOB.
Could you watch the video and offer a refutation to this new discovery for I believe the Dimonds may be taking things out of context as they do in other places.I personally dont have the facility to watch online videos now.
Yes Frank, the Dimonds simply refuse to understand the difference between merely desiring baptism and the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. The latter is quite a bit different from merely desiring baptism. I actually address it in the article of your comment. I wrote:
Below is the letter by Pope St. Siricius to Himerius (385).
“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.” (Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J. and Fr. Josef Neuner, S.J., The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)
The above quote by Pope Siricius doesn’t deny the doctrine of Baptism of Desire or refute through implication that it is impossible to be saved by Baptism of Desire.
Persons in necessity desiring water Baptism who die without it may very well be lost, because Baptism of Desire is not accomplished by merely desiring it.
There’s always the fear that those who die without Baptism, may be lost because perfect contrition, or some other requirement that God wants in the person, may be absent. Baptism of desire is something God does to the person.
Pope Siricius says delaying such infants or men “may lead to the ruin of our souls.” In other words, it would be a sin to delay them.
The second part of the quotation reiterates the first part. Perfect contrition may not be present with their faith, and Baptism is their only help to bring them to salvation since perfect contrition is not required with the sacraments.
I have a question. Can somebody who used to be Catholic but no longer is in communion with the pope be saved if he is seeking the Church with all his will power, seeking it left and right? What if he’s doing all in his power to find the Church, keep the commandments and seeks to do God’s will? What if all the evidence he sees shows him that the Catholic Church is not the True Church?
This is, of course, what a sedevacantist looks like to a Vatican II Catholic. In the chance that I am wrong, is it still possible to be saved, according to invincible ignorance and being a man of good will?
If you’re of goodwill but wrong and perfectly contrite for your sins, God will infuse the truth and save you, because to be of goodwill and contrite comes from God Who is giving you the grace to be saved to begin with. God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” ( I Tim. 2:4) and “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44) Why would God give the grace and not follow through?
Canon 1239 states that those who die as catechumens are to be counted as baptized. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X #17 clarifies that thus nullifying Ray’s argument against the Roman Catechism based on his private interpretation of both the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Antimagisterium of the Vatican 2 Antichurch and Dimond’s argument against the Dogmas of baptism or desire and baptism by blood based on his private interpretation of the Roman Catechism and his cherrypicking from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Both sides come out losers.
Yes, I cover the canons in Systematically debunking the Dimond Brothers on Baptism of Desire – PART 2
That’s 1 of the very few things you Novus Ordo Secularists get right.
[…] série, Refutando sistematicamente os irmãos Dimond sobre o Batismo de Desejo, 3ª parte, escrito pelo sr. Steven […]
Excellent article! Feeneyites must read this!
Mr. Speray, ¿Do you mind if we translate this texts or share them in abother website?
You may take and translate anything on my blog. Godspeed!
Oh, Thank you!
God bless you
Mr. Speray, you wrote:
It’s addressing those who would argue that, “the just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified, they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: “I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward” [Ps. 118:112], and of Moses the Apostle says, that he “looked to the reward” [Heb. 11:26].” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 11)
Can you explain this to me please? I do not understad
God bless.
The quote comes from the Council of Trent. Perhaps you should read it all in context. Here’s what it says from Denzinger 804:
Chap. 11. The Observance of the Commandments, and the Necessity and Possibility thereof
But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments [can. 20]; no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under an anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified [can. 18 and 22: cf. n. 200].
“For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do, and assists you that you may be able”; * “whose commandments are not heavy” (1Jn 5,3), “whose yoke is sweet and whose burden is light” (Mt 11,30). For they who are the sons of God, love Christ: “but they who love him, (as He Himself testifies) keep his words” (Jn 14,23), which indeed with the divine help they can do.
For although in this mortal life men however holy and just fall at times into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial [can. 23], they do not for that reason cease to be just. For that word of the just, “Forgive us our trespasses” (Mt 6,12 cf. Mt 107), is both humble and true. Thus it follows that the just ought to feel themselves more bound to walk in the way of justice, in that having been now “freed from sin and made servants of God” (Rm 6,22), “living soberly and justly and piously” (Tt 2,12), they can proceed onwards through Christ Jesus, through whom they “have access unto this grace” (Rm 5,2). For God “does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.” *
And so no one should flatter himself because of faith alone [can. 9, 19, 20], thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ “that he may be also glorified” (Rm 8,17). For even Christ Himself (as the Apostle says), “whereas he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered and being made perfect he was made to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation” (He 5,8 ff.) For this reason the Apostle himself admonishes those justified saying: “Know you not, that they who run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that you may obtain. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty, I so fight, not as one beating the air, but I chastise my body and bring it under subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway” (1Co 9,24 ff.). So also the chief of the Apostles, Peter: “Labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election; for doing these things, you shall not sin at any time” (2P 1,10).
Thence it is clear that they are opposed to the teaching of orthodox religion who say that the just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], or (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified, they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: “I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward” (Ps 118,112), and of Moses the Apostle says, that he “looked to the reward” (He 11,26).
Thank you!
Biblical Annotations are not guaranteed inerrant. “BoB”/”BoS” are not Baptism. Baptism is indispensable by necessity of mean for salvation.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. The Church doesn’t teach this. In fact, many saints also teach BOD, which would be impossible and be saints. If BOD is heresy, then teaching it would make one a formal heretic.
Confirmation, Eucharist, Penitence, and Extreme Unction are necessary by necessity of Precept for salvation. There are no “Code” of ” Canon” “Law”. AntiPope “Pius X” disobeyed Pope Clement XII when he refused to get rid of Mariano Rampolla and Pierto Gasparri after he discovered them to be Masonic “infiltrators” in 1903 and 1908.
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t know if either of them were Freemasons and you don’t know if Pope St. X knew or thought they were Freemasons. You are speculating only. You have no proof.
AntiPopes “Benedict XV”, “Pius XI”, and “Pius XII” disobeyed Pope Clement XII when they remained close friends with Mariano Rampolla they discovered him to be a Masonic “infiltrator” in 1903. What? You thought “Vatican 2” just came out of nowhere? You thought wrong!
SPERAY REPLIES: Where’s your proof that they knew that Rampolla was a Freemason?
Mr. Speray you should probably make an updated article on the Roman Catechism.
In Dominico Argo (Papal Encyclical of Pope Clement XIII): “As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error. They printed and distributed this book under the title of The Roman Catechism. There are aspects of their action worthy of special praise. In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error, and they proposed to transmit it openly to the faithful in very eloquent words according to the precept of Christ the Lord who told the apostles to proclaim in the light what He had said in the dark and to proclaim from the rooftops what they heard in secret… Therefore, in case the Church should be deceived and wander after the flocks of the companions who are themselves wanderers and unsettled with no certainty of truth, who are always learning but never arriving at the knowledge of truth, they proposed that only what is necessary and very useful for salvation be clearly and plainly explained in the Roman Catechism and communicated to the faithful… this book, composed with remarkable work and effort, was universally approved and welcomed with the highest praises.”
Nostis Et Nobiscum (Papal Encyclical of Pope Pius IX): “In these matters, you have authority over professors of the sacred disciplines and all other matters which belong to religion or closely pertain to it. See to it that in the entire program of the schools and especially in the matters which belong to religion, books are provided which are free from the suspicion of every error. Advise those who care for souls to be your continuous helpers in matters concerning schools for the very young. Appoint respectable male and female teachers and provide only books approved by this Holy See. Ministers should themselves set an example by daily instructing boys in the rudiments of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, they should take this instruction seriously. Advise these men, that when they are instructing, to keep in view the Roman Catechism, which was published by a decree of the Council of Trent and the order of St. Pius V Our Predecessor of immortal memory. Other supreme pontiffs, to name one, Clement XIII of happy memory, recommended this book as “a most suitable aid for removing the deceits of bad opinions and for spreading and establishing true and sound doctrine.””
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree #1, 1311-1312: “In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”
Thomistic Philosophy (simplified version):
Matter of the Human body: the body with its contents, for example the muscle and bones.
Form of the Human body: the eternal soul (see the Council of Vienne).
The Dimond brothers wrongly use the Council of Vienne to show that the Catechism of Trent does contain error therefore it cannot be used to defend the Baptism of Desire. This manifestly a misrepresentation because the Council of Vienne only defined the form of the human body and did not define when the form of the human body is united to the matter of the human body. Therefore, the point that the Dimonds’ make in regards to the heresy of the Roman Catechism is quite plainly mistaken and dare I say a lie, or perhaps it shows their utter lack of theological training.
God bless.
Sincerely, Cory.