| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |  |
Dearest Brothers Dimond,
B R A V O ! ! ! Just finished reading your response to Robert Sungenis on your website and I stood up and cheered. The clarion call of truth is so evident when seen in direct contradiction to the abominable heresies of the devil. And thank you for the background on this man. Very telling. I certainly hope that many, many people are finding you on the internet. Ah, I can only say God bless you with his choicest graces for this glorious work you are doing!
Sincerely in Christ the King,
Margaret Moore
Dear Brother Dimond,
I hope you recall that we had an online conversation a few months ago about the topic "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." I… maintained that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion have some hopes of acquiring salvation through the mercy of God; well, after reading your book online as well as various other documents, I have come to this conclusion: unless one dies a baptized Catholic in the state of grace, he shall suffer eternal damnation, no exceptions whatsoever, and to believe in this argument of "invincible ignorance" is to reject the Catholic Faith totally.
Thank you for enlightening me on this matter; please pray for me that my faith may grow.
God bless you and Mary keep you.
Adam Twardowski
That’s great to hear; yes, we will.
Bro Dimond,
Just a few weeks ago I received your package with the videos, tons of reading material, and your book "Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation". I want to thank you for all of your hard work in not only defending the faith, but in also teaching the faith to those (like myself) who have been led astray these past 40 years. However, I have an interesting observation that I was thinking of while working my way through your book. You spend alot of time talking about the necessity of Baptism for salvation and also refuting the false theory of "Baptism of Desire". Well, a scripture that always troubled me came to mind. In The Acts of the Apostles chapter 8, we read about Philip and his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. Specifically, after the Spirit told Philip to go to the man, and after Philip had preached Jesus to him, the eunuch said something which had always been astounding to me........in verse 36 the eunuch says, "See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?" The FIRST THING he asks for is to be baptized!!!!! That always confused me since Baptism today is seen more as a sign than a necessity, but after reviewing your research into what the Catholic Church has always said about the necessity of Baptism, it now makes perfect sense. Obviously, in Philip's preaching to the man, he undoubtedly told him of the necessity of Baptism; and of Our Lord's own words on the matter. If he hadn't, the eunuch never would have said those words. Also, in verse 37 (the very next verse), Philip confirms the Church's teaching (and also shoots down the heretical "Sola Fide" error) with the words, "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." In other words, faith in Jesus Christ was obviously necessary for this man's salvation, but ALSO the sacrament. Thankfully for the eunuch, he wasn't told "Your desire is enough", or "Just believe, you'll be fine". No, on the contrary, the minute the eunuch professed faith in Jesus Christ, he commanded the chariot they were riding in to stop and IMMEDIATELY baptized him (verse 38). Sounds like Philip thought Baptism was very important.
Anyway, I just wanted to encourage you in your work and to tell you how much it is appreciated.
Yours in Christ,
Rich Bonomo
In re-reading your work on Baptism of desire I went to the law dictionary to look up the word "or".
Using Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, Third Revision 1914, we see:
"As a particle, 'or' is often construed 'and', and 'and' construed 'or', to further the intent of the parties.... So, 'break or enter' in a statute defining burglary, means 'break and enter'. (emphasis mine)
It goes on to talk about when "or" is used to indicate an alternative choice that its use is often bad because it causes uncertainty:
"Where an indictment is in the alternative, as forged or caused to be forged, it is bad for uncertainty."
Clearly the Council of Trent was using the word 'or' in its most precise, legal sense in order to further its intent in defining justification when it says that justification cannot take place "...without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it". The Council of Trent is teaching us that to be justified we must be Baptized and desire Baptism - the Council of Trent is not offering us an alternative choice as you have pointed out so well!
Again thank you for your excellent research and presentation.
Best regards,
~Phil Pinheiro~
That is a very interesting point. And what is perhaps most significant in this regard is the infallible declaration that Trent makes that John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written” which comes in the very same sentence.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5. For instance:
Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever… The great question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”
Fr. Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here that John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is written if baptism of desire is true. He therefore holds that the true understanding of John 3:5 is that it does not apply literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written. But how does the Catholic Church understand these words? What does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say? It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. If what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices without being born again of water), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of course. The passage does not say that justification can take place by water or desire; it says justification cannot take place without water or desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN, unless a man is born again of water… Those who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the passage about John 3:5. The inclusion of “AS IT IS WRITTEN,unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)” shows the true meaning and the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other passages in Trent and other Councils which all affirm the absolute necessity of water baptism with no exceptions.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Dear Brothers Dimond, Last afternoon I viewed a video produced by you…It left me stunned and deeply moved. This morning I accessed your website for the first time and I am overwhelmed!!!
I am a Roman Catholic born in 1947 in a Buddhist country - SRI LANKA. Christian population was 5% of the entire population - Roman Catholics further reduced in number. I have lived in AUSTRALIA since 1972. As a youngster at St Peter's College Colombo we were taught Catholic Doctrine and some Apologetics by RC priests. Back then around the late fifties and early sixties we were clearly taught the teaching of BAPTISM OF DESIRE.
We were NEVER taught "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation"...or to be honest, I can't recall being taught this. In the year 2000, while praying in the presence of The Blessed Sacrament in a Novus Ordo church, an inner/exterior/everywhere' voice quietly said to me "I am not here!!!" Not long after I felt privileged when I discovered the SSPX realising the previous 30 years of Daily Masses in the NEW Church were wasted! Now, your revelations on the SSPX give me new matter to ponder on and pray about.
I deeply appreciate the monumental GOD-FILLED work you have done. Please pray for my soul as indeed I shall pray for you. May the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity Bless, guard and guide you with loving intercession from OUR Blessed Mother of GOD, MARY MOST HOLY
Yours sincerely
Peter de Niese
AUSTRALIA<
Dear Dimond Brothers,
Currently I'm reading the The Devil's Final Battle and as I read along I am reminded of how you label "Father" Paul Kramer and others as "false traditionalists." I must say that you are quite right. On pages 68 - 69, Paul Kramer addresses the dogma, Outside the Catholic Church There Is No Salvation. It reads, "In fact, Kasper's statement scorns the thrice-defined infallible dogma that "outside the Church there is no salvation." (extra ecclesia nulla salus) The actual wording of these three solemn, infallible (and therefore impossible to change) definitions that are binding on all Catholics (of whatever rank, including Cardinals and Popes) to believe, under pain of being automatically excommunicated (expelling themselves from the Catholic Church) are as follows"............
Here we can see that Paul Kramer admits that if a Pope dissents from the dogma, Outside the Catholic Church There Is No Salvation, he is excommunicated from the Catholic Church. And Paul Kramer is well aware that JPll dissented from this dogma and yet he still accepted JPll as a true Pope. The same is true concerning Benedict XVl. Paul Kramer admits in his book that Cardinal Ratzinger (who is the same person as Benedict XVl) also dissents from this dogma and yet Paul Kramer still accepts him as a true Pope. It seems to me that Paul Kramer, Nicholas Gruner, and all their collaboraters cannot bear the thought that a false pope could be reigning from Rome. They are deceiving themselves and their readers about the true state of the papacy.
Alain P.
Yes, you are exactly right.
Dear Brothers:
I'm enjoying your recent anaylsis comparing our present situation with the time of the Maccabees; and your comparison of JPII with the wicked Alcimus.
It's interesting to also note that, according to the Book of Maccabees, Alcimus is stricken with "palsy"---which is exactly what JP II has: "uncontrollable tremors" and "difficulty speaking" See Ist Mac., c. 9, 54. [55] Continued blessings upon your work of exposing the forces of Antichrist.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher A.
That is a very interesting point.
What an excellent article on Michael Davies! I once went to breakfast with him when I was connected to a Catholic publishing company, and I found him to have quite a casual attitude about problems in the Church, which really aren't problems in the Church at all -- they are a counter-Church. Anyway, God bless you!
Sincerely,
Bruce---------
Brothers, Thank you for the wonderful investigation on Michael Davies. My first instinct at the passing of Michael Davies was to think of the help he has given to the traditional movement. But alas although I have to fight it every day, my novus ordo programming has not entirely been erased. After reading your article there is no doubt that Mr. Davies misled countless traditionalists from the true faith. I thank God that He has provided you with the wisdom to see through the deceits of so many wolves in sheeps clothing. I continually pray for the strength and wisdom to defend the True Faith…Keep up the good work with your website and may God continually bless your apostolate.
God Bless, Robert
------------------
Good coverage of the teachings of M. Davies. Except that I would add his notion of situational infallibility to the popes' published teachings on the faith and morals to the list. St. John sums it up perfectly: "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth." (First Epistle of St. John, 1,6). Vatican Council I infallibly laid down the first condition of salvation which is to maintain the rule of the true apostolic faith. These people in the publishing business need to start learning the
faith. What incredible ignorance!---------------
Brother Michael and Brother Peter,
I read the Heresy of the Week about Michael Davies. It is really too bad he died faithless considering the work he did. But it really has to be said that he did all this research on the liturgy and Vatican II's novel idea of religious liberty, for ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING! He still held the new mass as valid and all the Vatican II hierarchy as valid as well! He would lead you to the door of sedevacantism, then block it saying that we can't go there!
Well, did you read his last "Letter from London" in the September 30th Remnant? It appears he was obsessed with Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" movie! He writes,
"The third in the series left me totally devastated. I could not stand up for at least five to ten minutes, a catharsis in the true Aristotelian manner. Seeing these constitutes, in my opinion, a literary and almost RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (emphasis mine) which I
trust that no reader will miss the experience of undergoing."
Think about this! Here is a guy with terminal cancer, staring eternity in the face, and he's getting euphoric from a FANTASY movie! We're not talking about "The Passion of the Christ" movie. We're talking about a movie with wizards, dwarfs, elves, and hobbits!
It's no wonder that this guy died suddenly of a massive heart attack! I guess his life was fulfilled after seeing such a "brilliant masterpiece". If only St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine could have been so fortunate as to live on earth at the
present time!
And you know, it hit me that way too. After watching the movie it took me a while to get up from my seat as well. But at the time, I thought it was because I ate too much popcorn and drank too much soda...that was a LONG movie.
Michael Davies was also of the opinion that parents of children over 10 have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (emphasis mine) to ensure that they read these literary masterpieces!
Now there's the real key to great knowledge: reading Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia. I always wondered how I got so smart. Thanks, Michael!
Bridget
I must agree with your comment here. I don’t know much at all about the Lord of the Rings movie, but Davies’ insistence that all children over 10 have an absolute duty to view it strikes one as ridiculous.
I think you're right on target about Malachi Martin. He had a lot of people fooled. With regards to Fr. Wickens...his chapel has not been turned over to the SSPX. Apparently the SSPX could not provide a full time priest which was Fr. Wickens request. There is a search for a full time traditional priest for the Chapel.
With regards to Sr. Lucia....have you ever considered the possibility that she may be on "drugs" that would account for her personality change. I too caught a glimpse of the canonization service, and watched Sr. Lucia being escorted to receive "communion" from JPII and immediately after she turned and waved with a big smile on her face. She seemed to be rather confused.
If you've ever read any books about Opus Dei, it's a well known fact that they rely heavily upon "drugs" to soothe their subjects, especially the ones who begin to have qualms of conscience. Who knows...they may have JPII "medicated" too! Antipsychotic drugs have the side effects that resemble the "symptoms" of Parkinson's Disease. Remember when JPII first started showing signs of the "disease", it was denied that he had Parkinson's. Maybe it wasn't Parkinson's at the time, but since the side effects are irreversible, why not just say it is Parkinson's. T.T.
No, this “Sister” Lucia is not on drugs. We saw the “beatification” ceremony as well, and “Sister” Lucia was so enthusiastic about meeting John Paul II that she grabbed John Paul II’s hand and kissed it immediately after receiving the Novus Ordo cookie. Supposing that John Paul II were a Pope and the Novus Ordo Mass valid (neither of which is true), the real Sister Lucia would never do this; she wouldn’t interrupt her concentration immediately after receiving Our Lord to grab the hand of the Pope. She would wait until after Mass to pay her respects. But the fake “Lucia” was so intent on showing everyone her devotion to Antipope John Paul II that she couldn’t even wait until the end of the Novus Ordo and the consummation of the cookie to kiss his hand.
I recently heard that JPII gave communion to Tony Blair. Have you heard about it? Another example why Canon 844 is an evil canon!
steve
Yes, we heard about. He’s quite an apostate, that’s for sure.
^
" />
" />
" />
" />
" />
