/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Dimond brothers have adopted a very extreme dogmatic sedevacantism to the point that they effectively consider as non-Catholic anyone who recognizes the legitimacy of the V2 Popes. This has caused them to succumb to bitter zeal. They also have a very strong emphasis on the dogma EENS (no salvation outside the Church). They consider Baptism of Desire to be de fide a heresy, even when held to in a way that doesn't directly undermine EENS or the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (as St. Thomas did for example). They have a strong tendency to denounce people as non-Catholic and outside the Church based on their own reasoning.Their "monastery" and the history surrounding MHFM is laughable.

They excommunicate anyone they disagree with. They set themselves up to be a de-facto Pope of the whole Catholic world.

What part of that is Catholic?

Their bitter zeal and schism permeates most of their writings. They are very dangerous. They cause Catholics to become dogmatic Home Aloners, staying at home every Sunday even when they have a perfectly good Tridentine Mass a short distance away.

In this way they promote damnation…

I think that's enough error for me to say avoid them.

Whatever "truths" they have can be found hundreds – even thousands – of other places. If the whole MHFM site went down, the world would not lose much. (They have good content contra Protestantism, on Catholic miracles, etc…) We Catholics can and should judge trees by their fruits. When I see Catholics staying home from the Mass and Sacraments because they are being picky about some small thing that doesn't matter, suffering very real damage which really DOES matter, I know that the advice they received is erroneous and evil.

I particularly like their in depth bible studies. But I could do without (and they do seemed to have stopped) the freeze frame distorted face proves possession type stuff.

>>817073

>It seems like "trad" catholics never even try to refute them

they've already been refuted by their own former followers.

Whatever you think about the dimonds and sedes in general, you have to admit their use of quotation marks are unmatched

>>817073

They cause people to commit the gravely evil sin of schism - and do this in such a way that the sinner considers himself even more Christian and virtuous by staying in this sin.

>>817400

I do understand their frustration, and yes: some of them have extensive knowledge of the Scriptures. But still, I have been taught by my very devout and traditionalist grandmother to stay with the Church because that is God’a sinful bride and He promised the gates of Hell shall not prevail…at times we need faith in face of what seems overwhelming despair.

I do like some of the Dimond brothers videos, even if at times they seem arrogant; just like how I feel towards Michael Voris of Church Militant, even if I admire their speaking up against the corruption in the hierarchy (even if he goes a bit overboard at times, and he seems to take all accusations made as certain without any verification).

If you deny the Pope you're a protestant, that's just simple facts.

>>817807

You know what, yeah, they are. It's a protest against what Christ and what Christ taught.

>>817808

>the original one true apostolic church that still maintains the original unadulterated creed as defined at Nicaea+Constantinople goes against Christ's teachings

remember to pack lightly for the afterlife anon, I hear it's gonna be toasty down there.

>>817809

Do you deny that Peter is the foundation for which Christ church is built on yes or no.

>>817810

>Peter was the only apostle that mattered

>Bowing down to Peter is more important than bowing down to Jesus himself

>A single man is capable of being as infallible as Jesus (but only since 1870)

http://oodegr.com/english/papismos/kleidia1.htm

http://oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/eksousia_petrou1.htm

http://oodegr.com/english/papismos/alathito1.htm

http://oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/petros_rwmi1.htm

http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

>>817814

Matthew 16:18

>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now please tell me where any of the other apostle were mentioned?

>>817815

>offended at a fact from history

what argument? I merely stated the decision of a historic event:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=39:the-vatican-dogma

If you knew anything about the Orthodox, you'd know we consider you guys to have already gone off the deep end waay before that.

>>817817

Congratulations, you've managed to reply to a post with multiple citations without even opening a single link. If only we could all be so pious.

>>817819

Why should I bother reading what heretics think when I can show my argument in a clear and quick way?

>>817818

Vatican I defined the scope of infallibility, and how to know when a declaration was infallible, but that doesn't mean it was engendered at that moment. There are many early quotes about the infallibility of the Roman See, about how the Roman See is the bulwark of the faith, etc. Many are by Eastern Saints. You willfully ignore the clear teaching of the Papacy by the Church Fathers and make it a dialectic between Papal supremacy, honor, and primacy. The fact is, all three mean the same thing.

>>817820

>thinks he made an argument

oh sweetie.

>>817821

>There are many early quotes about the infallibility of the Roman See

then surely it would be no trouble at all to provide such conclusive early sources?

>>817823

Please don't sweetie me.

>>817823

Gets posted a lot here, but usually it's just met with "Erick Ybarra is a Catholic Jay Dyer"

https://erickybarra.org/2017/03/14/church-fathers-papal-infallibility/

https://erickybarra.org/2017/02/20/no-the-eastern-bishops-of-the-acacian-484-519-did-not-reject-the-papalism-of-the-formula-of-hormisdas/

https://erickybarra.org/2017/01/28/catholic-primacy-answering-some-objections-from-an-eastern-orthodox-researcher/

https://erickybarra.org/2017/01/29/answer-to-orthodox-objections-part-2/

https://erickybarra.org/2017/02/01/answers-to-eastern-orthodox-objections-part-2-code-of-justinian-petrine-primacy-conciliarism-papalism-and-pope-honorius-i/

>>817830

None because I'm trying to tell you that the bible clearly states that Peter is the foundation.

>>817835

>merely asserting something is an argument

>repeating the same thing over and over will magically make an "argument" clearer somehow

Broken-record responses like these are part of the reason people like me leave the RCC in the first place. If you actually cared about spreading the gospel, you'd respond more like >>817825 . At least that anon is trying.

Anyways, y'all can go back to dealing with your internal schisms like what this thread is supposed to be about, while I go read the links that other anon kindly provided.

>>817094

this is such a spiritual relief, thank you Christanon

>>817806

They don't deny the function of the Pope, they believe that function rests in a man who doesn't have the current position of "Pope" within the hierarchy of the Church. The position has been usurped by an anti-Pope. I think that it makes sense to some extent given the reforms of the Vatican II. A true Pope wouldn't allow such things to occur and many Popes in the past wrote against modernist heresies.

>>817073

some things are simply not worth you're time trying to formally refute, it requires more effort to refute bullshit than to create it.

>>817825

>"Erick Ybarra is a Catholic Jay Dyer"

Where's the lie tho

>>820582

Lie?

>>817806

What do you do when the current "pope" denies the teachings of past popes?

>>820778

Recognizing that someone is the pope doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. If pope Francis said that two and two make five Catholics are under no obligation to act as though that's true, but they are still obligated to obey him insofar as he is the pope.

>>820808

>he can't occupy an office if he doesn't have the faith

Pope Honorius was anathematized, that doesn't mean that he wasn't the pope.

>>820778

The same thing Christians did in the past when there were antipopes. Submit to the office inasmuch as it doesn't conflict with your faith.

The pope is still the pope until such time as he preaches formal heresy. 2,019 years of unbroken succession, that has never happened. That level of consistency given how winnie the poohy humans are requires supernatural assistance.

>>820811

Also, there is a line in the sand that has to be crossed. A pope can BE a heretic (one who believes heretical things) without TEACHING heresy.

We have had heretic popes in the past. They were still popes. Because they didn't cross that line.

>>820817

>2,019 years of unbroken succession

There was a pope 33 years before the crucifixion?

>>820819

>because they didn't cross that line

How do we decide where the line is? How do we decide whether it has been crossed?

>>820817

>that has never happened.

Uh, Honorius? One at the very least.

>>820948

Anathematized, but not a heretic. He also never spoke ex cathedra.

>>820949

But Latin Mass is still being celebrated by some Catholic Churches. Not no mention the Eastern Catholic Churches.

>>820967

No, he was explicitly called a heretic in his anathematization. Monothelitism is, after all, a heresy. He was still the legitimate Pope and never broke the succession, of course.

>>820994

Whoops, I must have read over that bit - you're right. I think the line in the sand is that he never spoke ex cathedra or tried to change central tenets of the church.

>>820991

Eastern catholics celebrate Latin masses? doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being "eastern"?

>>818059

Yes, but then we're confronted by the next problem - is more schism the answer? I just can't believe that - even if we need to somehow reinfiltrate the Church & force the damn clergy at metaphorical gunpoint to hold a Vatican 3.

What we really need I suspect is a modern scholar on the level of St. Aquinas or St. Augustine, who can restore the Tradition of the Church, but with full understanding of the current political & metaphysical landscape the same way they understood theirs.

Right now I think part of the issue is still the Church floundering with how to reconcile the modern world, with every competing religion known to humanity acting to pull people in a thousand directions (plus new ones like Transhumanism) acting as competition, as well as the obvious challenges from simple Atheism. They seem to be gradually pushing the quasi-pantheistic "Process Theology" & Universalism of people like De Chardin & Illia Delio- which is of course all tied into the quasi-New Age spirituality of Post Modernism.

I'd move in the opposite direction to that of course - it's just the old Gnostic heresies again after all. But it needs to be formulated correctly & really understand the "competition", as well as how to debunk it. So all we need (I think) is a Theological genius familiar with everything from Alfred North Whitehead to the Rig Veda, and able to reinvent the Catholic Dogma in light of all that plus the implications of modern science (without it being pop science tripe). No small task!

>>821023

Sedes are materially in schism because they deny the Pope but still have the faith, like during the Western Schism.

>even if we need to somehow reinfiltrate the Church & force the damn clergy at metaphorical gunpoint to hold a Vatican 3.

Okay, so you'll force the modernist Bishops to hold a council? Do you not realize how absurd it is to think that's a solution? They'll just end up with something worse than before. Same absurdity that expects a Cardinal like Kasper to condemn Francis.

>>821033

But I also must add that I don't agree with the Sede thesis, nor do I condone their constant attacking everyone but themselves as non-Catholic.

>>821019

They're traditional in their Mass, if it's tradition you want.

>>821023

>Yes, but then we're confronted by the next problem - is more schism the answer? I just can't believe that

In my sede pov, it is the conciliar church which has provoked a schism with tradition. A lot of infiltrations in the church of that day + Catholics who don't bother question the concile made possible the majority of the members of the former church to separate from it.

>>817073

>Why do people hate mhfm so much?

Who hates them?

If we had a Pope that put the Catholic back in Catholic, we wouldn't have these problems.