September 7, 2008
vol 19, no. 251

Setting the bait to halt the hate

    In today's Epistle the holy Apostle of the Gentiles St. Paul urges us to "walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called." That we are endeavoring to do "with all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." It isn't always easy, especially when heresy creeps in so stealthily that it divides even Traditional Catholics. But the Church has always been aggressive against heresy for she knows how dangerous this raptor can be. Heresy, like a ferocious predator, lurks in the shadows, not baring its carniverous fangs on unsuspecting souls until it's too late. But there are ways to fight these rapacious dangers by going after the lair of the liars and snaring the prey through prayer and Catholic truth. That is our mission in this hunt to eradicate the vulturous vamps who seem to thrive by hemorrhaging hope, scattering the flesh of faith on the winds of twisted doctrines, seemingly sucking dry all avenues of grace through "the wickedness of men, in craftiness to the machination of error." It is a question of survival, a matter of love, that we intensify our mission to constrain the beast be it Modernism, Ecumenism or Dimonds in the rough.

    We have just passed Labor Day and the feast of Pope Saint Pius X, Defender of the Faith and Apostle against Modernism. This month of Our Sorrowful Mother is filled with wonderful feasts in her honor, beginning with this week in which Monday's feast of the Nativity of Mary bookends the Most Holy Name of Mary on Friday. The next week we have the ides of September that signatures the month with the Feast of the Seven Sorrows, preceded immediately by the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross for there can be no festival without the cross. The following week we celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom in midweek. Add in three Saturdays dedicated to Our Lady and September takes on a beautiful blue hue. Top it off with the feasts of Saint Matthew, Saint Michael the Archangel and Saint Jerome and it doesn't get much better. That takes us to the month of the Most Holy Rosary and we have October 9th in our sights approximately one month from now. On that day it will become official: 50 years of an interminable interregnum since the death of the last true Pope - His Holiness Pope Pius XII.

    And therein is the crux of this commentary for in case those, who persist in disturbing the comity of traditional Catholics, don't realize it yet, it was this good Pope who officially excommunicated Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. To our knowledge and to all others' research, he never repented nor was he ever reinstated before he died. This sad fact should wake the echoes of his followers to realize the consequences of that. The man who so stubbornly and Calvinistically insisted there is no salvation outside the Church died outside the Church!

    One who is excommunicated is a heretic by definition and yet it the very ones who champion this heretic's cause who persist in labeling everyone who disagrees with their opinions, and that's all they are - opinions, as "heretics" who are damned. I speak of course of the notorious duo better known as the dubious Dimond Brothers, aka Michael Dimond and Peter Dimond who, since we can't tell the two apart and don't really care to, will henceforth consider them a two-headed monster going by the name of Dimond. Said creature and a few of its pusillanimous parroting pundits have responded to the articles we ran throughout July against the heresy of Feeneyism with the very exact behavior we expected.

    Rather than addressing the message, they have chosen to attack the messengers. That would be a very good priest in Father Martin Stepanich, OFM as well as Father Anthony Cekada, all the traditional Bishops as well as Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey and Griff Ruby. The latter has been a target of vindictiveness in which the Dimonds have manifested expertise in being the masters of deception and misdirection. Oh, they are so clever, but so is satan. Get the connection?

    What they and all of their clueless Feeneyite followers forget is that no one on this site has ever said that water is not necessary for baptism in the Church Militant or there is salvation outside the Church. That would be impossible for the Church is the only Ark of Salvation. However, in their narrow minded pride they have set themselves up as their own magisterium and ignore the Communion of Saints as being the entire Church composed of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. No one who dies receiving the Baptism of Blood or the Baptism of Desire could ever be a bonafide member of the Church Militant for that can only be accomplished through Baptism of Water. However they can become members of the Church Suffering, and may even fast-track to the Church Triumphant. Whichever route taken, if they truly desire Baptism but it is not available or if an unbaptized would die for Jesus Christ believing in Him and His true Church quite possibly at the last split second of their lives, they would be inside the Church and therefore eligible for salvation.

    Whatever religion they may have practiced in their lives be it Protestant, Hindu, Islam, Judaism, Banshee, Voodoo or agnostic, even atheist, if they suddenly had an epiphany at the last second and truly desired in their heart how then are we to judge a perfect act of contrition? Only God can do so.

    Likewise, when one is baptized by water using the proper formula that person is inside the Church because that soul has been cleansed of Original Sin and is in a state of Sanctifying Grace. It is only what one does after baptism that determines if one remains in such a state. If one does, and it is possible, even if one lived as a non-Catholic without realizing it is the true Church through invincible ignorance, that person could be saved because his soul was still in Sanctifying Grace. To deny that is to deny God's mercy and the effects of Sanctifying Grace. So, in conclusion, every single person baptized is a member of the Church and therefore not outside the Church Militant. It is after that they go wrong and without the healing triage of the Sacrament of Penance to rid the cancer of mortal sin, one is terminal unless one makes a perfect Act of Contrition, something quite rare. But then, only God knows that for no man can ever judge another's heart. That includes the opinionated judgmental self-appointed 'prophet', 'pope', and pulp pusher Dimond.

    That being said, there is no way, Jose, that anyone can be saved in another religion. They could live their religion to the fullest and again, through invincible ignorance (though that would be nearly impossible today considering technology and communications) could be saved not by their religion but by the fact that they were baptized as Catholics merely by the fact that only in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Sacrament of Baptism efficacious.

    Think about that, folks. Every Baptist minister, Lutheran pastor, Assembly of God representative, Evangelical administer, Methodist presbyter or what have you is bringing a soul into the Church Militant when they baptize that person. What do you think those non-Catholics, many anti-Catholics would say to that? Think they'd be surprised? They will be surprised when they stand before their Supreme Judge and realize Christ really meant it when He said, "Not every one that saith to Me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: but he that doth the will of My Father, Who is in Heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

    That also goes for those who have mislead countless Catholics by leading them into apostasy in the counterfeit church of conciliarism and OUTSIDE of the true Church because they have, like Protestants, abandoned the divinely ordained Sacraments. Oh, Baptism remains the same and it is also true one does not need to be ordained to confer the sacrament for anyone can baptize if using the proper material - plain water - along with the exact formula - "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is exactly as St. Paul says in today's epistle: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in us all, Who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen." Uh, don't you think it would only be natural then to concede that God has the final say?

    So I find it strange that the Dimond brothers would put so much emphasis on the one sacrament that remains a sacrament no matter who confers it when it is the other sacraments that have been gravely altered and have lost the efficacy of grace. That would begin with the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist since the bread and wine are not confected because, as His Holiness Pope St. Pius V decreed in De Defectibus and Quo Primum, the formula cannot be changed and one Giovanni Montini did just that by issuing in the very thing our Lord foretold - "the abomination of desolation" (St. Matthew 24: 15). So without Christ being present in the Blessed Sacrament, where is the sacramental grace? Right, it's not there. Oh, there can be actual grace because of the intent of the one who attends thinking he or she is receiving Christ Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. But they are not. That is because good ol' Montini also changed the Sacrament of Holy Orders making all ordinations after 1968 absolutely null and utterly void as has been documented in Fr. Cekada's insightful treatises at Traditional and by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae and Pope Pius XII's Sacramentum Ordinis. Of course, no Pope has ever had the power or authority to alter a divinely ordained sacrament, but then Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger were and are not true Popes. For proof of that, well, just read His Holiness Pope Paul IV's Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

    With these facts, we can easily see why God has withdrawn His graces and blessings because there can be none when there are so few ordained priests to properly administer and confer sacraments. This begins in the confessional. If the confessor cannot absolve sins of the penitents, then those in mortal sin continue in that state despite their misconception that they are not. This has a domino effect in eventually justifying that sins are no longer sins and we arrive at, well, what we have today where anything goes.

    And it seems that for the Dimonds anything goes as they jam it all together in trying to forge a new doctrine that has been thoroughly refuted by countless theologians as well as Popes, Saints, Fathers of the Church and numerous Doctors of the Church as Griff Ruby so adroitly documents in Monday's seventh installment of his magnificent series "The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty." His title for this installment is "The Evidence is Overwhelming" and that is the rub. It is overwhelming.

    Yet the Dimonds continue to dance around the truth of BOB and BOD and misdirect, taking quotes out of context, rationalizing and sitting in judgment of someone's "bad will" without even knowing that person. That I have on first hand experience for we talked to them twice several years ago before we came to sedevacantism. The first time I talked with one of the Dimonds in 2001 or early 2002, I was left with a queasy, very unsettling sentiment after talking to this smooth talker. Think of a used car salesman and you'll understand what I mean.

    There is a difference here between people of "good will" and those who foment "bad will" such as the Dimonds. The second time I talked to either Peter or Michael (I have no idea who's who and, as I said, I really don't care) was just after we had moved to Missouri in the fall of 2002. I was boldly told that Atila Guimaraes had "bad will" and I know Atila personally. I knew that was a flat-out lie. When I hung up the phone I didn't feel so much confusion as I had the first time, but rather a definite sense that I had just talked with the devil himself. I have never contacted nor desire to talk to either again unless it is to welcome them back to the true Church which I will gladly do.

    Oh, there is one other point I'd like to clear up because I understand it is one of the Dimonds who are taking credit for our becoming sedevacantists. Au contraire. In fact, it was the Dimond brothers who delayed our delaring our stance for the very reason we wanted no association whatsoever with them. Atila will attest to this for several times I broached this subject with him. Though he continues to avoid declaring sedevacantism, we have remained cordial in agreeing to disagree for it is a theological opinion and not a matter of faith per se. However, in the matter of BOB and BOD he would be in agreement with the Church as we are. In respect to sedevacantism, I daresay there are many who have arrived at the very same theological opinion that the conciliar 'popes' cannot possibly be Catholic and we are in an interregnum, but will not declare because of the bad reputation the Dimonds have garnered as sedevacantists. If anyone has given sedevacantism a bad name it would be the Dimond brothers.

    Not to rub salt into the wounds, but they might be interested to know that what convinced us to go public with our stance and change the Daily Catholic to a sedevacantist site in 2005 was never their influence, but the book The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church which we so heartily recommend to all. The author of that book? Glad you asked. Griff Ruby.

    The Gospel for today's Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost is the answer to what needs to be done. To eliminate the hate that emanates from the Dimond compound against anyone who doesn't agree with their mein kampf. Our Lord says in St. Matthew 22: 36, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment." That is key. And if we truly do love God then Christ's succeeding command is a no-brainer, "And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." You'll note one is contingent on the other. You can't love God and hate your neighbor. Likewise, you can't take the humanitarian tack and love your neighbor while snubbing your Creator. We love our neighbor not because of their physical, psychological or sociological traits, but because they are, like us, children of God made in His image and likeness. To hate our neighbor is to hate God. The greatest love we can show our neighbor is to want our neighbor's soul to be saved. That cannot be done with platitudes and compromises, with condoning sin or fabricating doctrine, twisting truths to fit one's own warped agenda whatever that might be. Pride raises its ugly head so many times as a blockade to dam up grace and allow the flood of sin to engulf souls. Hate is to be so prideful that one thinks they are the only one who is "right" even when the infallible, perennial Magisterium of the Church clearly contradicts the prideful one's stubborn and dubious assertions.

    Conversely love fosters humility and humility fosters a fire in one's soul to stand against error and to come clean with what is really important: the deep loving desire to want our neighbor to enjoy everlasting life. That is what every Catholic must strive for. This can only be done by dying in the state of Sanctifying Grace. Grace and the two greatest commandments go hand in hand as affirmed by Saint Paul who lays it out in 1 Corinthians 13: 1-2 that if we have not charity, it is all for naught. Think about that. Where is the charity in the vitrolic judgment the Dimonds have doled out against true priests, true successors of the Apostles and countless lay persons who truly do have good will in their efforts to fulfill our Lord's words above? It is pride pure and potent. They may very well have accrued much knowledge from hours and hours of study, quite possibly even tried to move a mountain or two, convey they know more mysteries than most, and may very well practice their faith (we have no way of knowing since we don't employ spies in Fillmore, New York), but what good is any of that if they express such hate for those who challenge their sources, or intimidate those who do not happen to be as extreme or are still coming to the truths by the grace of God in His time, not ours. That is what we pray for and why the DailyCatholic continues to publish on a shoestring. We don't have the funds for flashy videos and smooth-bind publications that conceal the faux pas in the glitz of slick covers and tomes of quotes, many, many taken out of context as Griff has been pinpointing. We will shout it from the rooftops but we will never deliberately steer readers wrong.

    Finally, one other issue needs to be addressed. It deals with their whining that no one will debate them. Well, here's a response to the Dimonds' challenge for an open debate. First, let me clarify the responses from those who oppose Feeneyism. They are not against debating, but let us do it on fair and representative terms. Let us set up the parameters that after Griff has completed his series, which could be as much as another year or so (yeah, he has that much ammunition built up against Feeneyism and other heresies), why don't we start to plan now on having Dr. Droleskey, Griff, and, quite possibly someone like say Gerry Matatics along with, oh, say Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt and one of the traditional bishops, say either Bishop Donald Sanborn or Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI line up against an equal array of Feeney representatives. I know, I know, the Dimonds have condemned all the above. So what's new. We're in good company since, according to the Dimonds we're all going to hell except them. But then they've been condemned by Richard Ibranyi, another self-styled magistrate who likewise wields excommunications almost as fast as the conciliar church canonizes saints. Sure glad the Dimonds or Ibranyi are not the ones who really judge souls or we'd all be doomed. But back to the proposed debate. That means three lay persons, two priests and one bishop arguing for Feeneyism. Let's set it up for the spring of 2010 somewhere in the midwest which would be advantageous to all parties, equidistance for all parties on the west coast and east coast and give the participants time to plan their schedule to include the debate on their docket. This will also give the Dimonds plenty of time to try to find a bishop who subscribes to the heresy of Feeneyism. Lotsa luck. Oh, and making yourself a bishop won't count, just as making yourself a 'religious brother' doesn't make you an expert theologian.

    So there you have it, Dimonds. You want to debate, you're on. Either put up or shut up. If you're not willing to do that, then once again it will prove you have no credibility and the sooner Catholics realize that, the better off they'll be. We're trying to make it as smooth as possible for Feeneyites to repent of their heresy and their grave errors that are compounded by stubbornly clinging to a man who was excommunicated by a true Pope. To carry this out it begins with prayer while continuing to hammer away in exposing the Dimonds in the rough. So, by setting a tentative schedule for after Easter in 2010, the date for debate will have to be late; what can't wait is setting the bait to halt the hate.

Michael Cain, editor

    For past CATHOLIC PewPOINT editorials, see Archives

    September 7, 2008
    vol 19, no. 251
    Catholic PewPOINT