Open Letter to The Dimond Brothers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victory5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cam100 said:
Although this would be an example of type of deception, I don’t think it could qualify as what is referred to as THE supreme religious deception. The reason is that your example really describes a situation in which the followers of the deception would NOT be guilty of sin. In your example, the “deceived” are trying to do the right thing, as you explain. They are trying to follow the man who, by nearly all accounts, is the vicar of Christ. Now, Catholics in the past have mistakenly followed antipopes, and have not been condemned by the Church for their mistaken idenfication of the man who is the vicar of Christ.

The description of supreme deception seems to imply a great injury to the faith, and the loss of many souls. It would seem that this would have to accomplished by a deliberate turning away from the papacy and the church, not a case of mistaken identity. The Catechism seems to describe a turning toward oneself. It seems to illustrate something more akin to the attitude of many Catholics today who hold themselves, instead of the pope, as the head of their religion. For example, many Catholics think they can follow their own rules on birth control, divorce, pre-marital sex, and Sunday obligation. This type of behavior seems more in line with the description of the Supreme Deception, which speaks of “a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh”.
You asked me earlier to provide a better interpretation of the “supreme deception”, since I rejected yours. I don’t claim to know the future, but I see problems with your interepetation, so I can still reject that even if I don’t have a perfect interpretation myself. I don’t have to have the answer to know that another proposal has problems. However, I’ve provided one suggestion in this post.
Click to expand...
This seems like a very good description of the supreme deception. The Anti-christ (modern secularism) has convinced people that they can simultaneously be “catholic” and make whatever choices they prefer without consequence. There is certainly no requirement that the supreme religious deception be more than a very ingrained heresy that leads millions astray.
 
estesbob said:
Only if one accepts your personal interpretion. I dont read it the way you do and neither does anyone else in this thread. but since you believe the book is in error anyway it is useless to argue with you what the right interpretation is. Either you accept it as the truth or you dont. if you dont you shouldnt try and base profound theological theories on it.
Click to expand...
After reading through this thread, you have not, thus far, in any way intellectually refuted anything TNT has posted.
Also, unless you are writing most of the posts on this thread, you have no way of knowing what others interpretations are nor do you know if they are SedeVacantists (without individuals saying so). Unless you claim that you have a status that is greater than us mere mortals.
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
After reading through this thread, you have not, thus far, in any way intellectually refuted anything TNT has posted.
Also, unless you are writing most of the posts on this thread, you have no way of knowing what others interpretations are nor do you know if they are SedeVacantists (without individuals saying so). Unless you claim that you have a status that is greater than us mere mortals.
Click to expand...
I will say in estesbob’s defense that it is a little peculiar that TNT wants to argue about the meaning of what it written in the Catechism when he states that the Catechism itself is in error.

That being said, I think we have several options presented here that show that supreme religious “fallacy” (perhaps a better word) does not necessarily mean sede vacante, it could likely refer to a heresy.
 
Daisiegirl said:
this is only a ssmmmaaaaaaall portion of what She said to the two children…

I have a llittle booklet titled, "Apparition of the Blessed Virgin on the Mountain of LaSalette, the 19th of September, 1846." It is published by the Shepherdess of LaSalette with Imprimatur by Mgr. Bishop of Lecce.

Here is a verbatim of some of the things She said:

Page 12 ~ In the year 1864,** Lucifer** together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell; they will put an end to faith little by litte, even in those dedicated to God. They will blind them in such a way, that, unless they are blesed with a special grace, these people will take on the spirit of these angels of hell; several religious institutions will lose all faith and will lose many souls." “There will be churches built to serve these spirits” “Churches will be locked up and desecrated. Priests and religious orders will be hunted down, and made to die a cruel death. Several will abandon the faith and a **great number **of priests and members of religious orders will break away from the true religion; among these people there will even be bishops.”

Page 18 ~ "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."

Page 9 ~ The **Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay." **

Page 10 ~ “The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honours and pleasures, the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Yes, the priests are asking vengeance, and vengeance is hanging over their heads. Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my Son again!” “… there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls, there is no one left worthy of offering the stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world. God will strike in an unprecendeted way.”

Page 17 ~ “It will be during this time that the Antichrist will be born of a Hebrew nun, a false virgin who will communicate with the old serpent, the master of impurity, his father will be B.”

Kinda all goes along with what TNT is trying to make sense of…
Click to expand...
Interesting Post.
 
cam100;2970485]
The description of supreme deception seems to imply a great injury to the faith, and the loss of many souls. It would seem that this would have to accomplished by a deliberate turning away from the papacy and the church, not a case of mistaken identity. The Catechism seems to describe a turning toward oneself
Click to expand...
Deception
the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture
It seems to illustrate something more akin to the attitude of many Catholics today who hold themselves, instead of the pope, as the head of their religion. For example, many Catholics think they can follow their own rules on birth control, divorce, pre-marital sex, and Sunday obligation. This type of behavior seems more in line with the description of the Supreme Deception
Click to expand...
,

I think TNT’s interpretation is more plausible.
 
stmaria said:
Deception
the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture

,

I think TNT’s interpretation is more plausible.
Click to expand...
Why?

Is not “secular humanism” a great heresy that has deceived millions who think they are catholic but in reality are not? Doesn’t the word “fallacy” seem to intimate a heresy, a false belief?
 
SemperFidelis said:
You failed to answer my claims that much of what the children said has been speculated as false by the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917, speculation that includes apparantely several Popes. Here’s a quote regarding the two secrets:

“It is unknown what impressions these mysterious revelations made on the pope, for on this point there were two versions diametrically opposed to each other. Maximin’s secret is not known, for it was never published. Mélanie’s was inserted in its entirety in a brochure which she herself had printed in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, (the one which you referenced above) with the approval of the bishop of that town. A lively controversy followed as to whether the secret published in 1879 was identical with that communicated to Pius IX in 1851, or if in its second form it was not merely a work of the imagination. The latter was the opinion of wise and prudent persons, who were persuaded that a distinction must be made between the two Mélanies, between the innocent and simple voyante of 1846 and the visionary of 1879, whose mind had been disturbed by reading apocalyptic books and the lives of illuminati. As Rome uttered no decision the strife was prolonged between the disputants. Most of the defenders of the text of 1879 suffered censure from their bishops.” (Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917)
Click to expand...
I read this as well from the Catholic Encyclopedia. However it was in very little detail. If they were diametrically opposed then it would be would prudent to reveal Maximin’s secret. If Our Lady appeared to these ignorant children, I am sure Our Lady would not allow their minds to be disturbed nor for their to be ‘two Melanies’. Again, but if this was the case then all the more reason to reveal Maximin’s secret which is claimed to be diametrically in opposition the Melanies.
 
Sure said:
Why?

Is not “secular humanism” a great heresy that has deceived millions who think they are catholic but in reality are not? Doesn’t the word “fallacy” seem to intimate a heresy, a false belief?
Click to expand...
Actually Scripturally ‘the TNT plausibility’ is not unjustified, ***for it is written:
St Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

St Matthew 7:14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and*** few*** there are that find it!

St Luke 13 :24 Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and *** shall not be able***.

(The Holy Bible - Douay-Rheims)

Remember these are words of the Almighty GOD and of course not heresy.
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
Actually Scripturally ‘the TNT plausibility’ is not unjustified, ***for it is written:
St Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

St Matthew 7:14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and*** few*** there are that find it!

St Luke 13 :24 Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.

(The Holy Bible - Douay-Rheims)

Remember these are words of the Almighty GOD and of course not heresy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand. How do these passages relate to this?

Thanks!
 
TO estesbob… oops, sorry, it’s post #70 where I typed some of the quotes of Our Lady of LaSalette…
 
stmaria said:
Deception
the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture

I think TNT’s interpretation is more plausible.
Click to expand...
I think your dictionary definition doesn’t quite apply here. The Church often uses words in a slightly different way than the usual definition on the street. When the word “deception” is used by the church, it usually refers to a situation where the “deceived” person is not completely deceived in the usual sense of the word, but retains enough knowledge to be aware that they are turning away from God. Without this knowledge, grave sin is not possible.

The usual dictionary definition of deception is different in that it would include a person who is completely clueless about what is happening. This type of deception doesn’t seem to be the “Supreme Deception”, since is does not involve grave sin. For the deception to be “supreme” from the Chrurch’s point of view, it seems more plausible that the “deception” is something different, something more like what I described in post # 76.
 
cam100 said:
I think your dictionary definition doesn’t quite apply here. The Church often uses words in a slightly different way than the usual definition on the street. When the word “deception” is used by the church, it usually refers to a situation where the “deceived” person is not completely deceived in the usual sense of the word, but retains enough knowledge to be aware that they are turning away from God. Without this knowledge, grave sin is not possible.

The usual dictionary definition of deception is different in that it would include a person who is completely clueless about what is happening. This type of deception doesn’t seem to be the “Supreme Deception”, since is does not involve grave sin. For the deception to be “supreme” from the Chrurch’s point of view, it seems more plausible that the “deception” is something different, something more like what I described in post # 76.
Click to expand...
Also, the Catechism uses these words: **Fallacia religiosa suprema **. From “fallacia” we get the English word “fallacy” which make sit even more likely that millions of the Faithful would be led astray by a false truth. “Fallacia” does not have all the same sinister meaning attached to it that “deception” has in English.
 
MilesXpisti said:
Actually, it isn’t, sir. You’re quoting Chapter 2 of Pastor Aeternus completely out of context. The entire point of that chapter does not address the perpetuity of succession (that is to say timely election of the Roman Pontiff), but that the successors of Peter are perpetually endowed with his primacy over the Universal Church. The anathema of that canon reads:

Essentially the point of the canon is the refutation of some Orthodox heretics that Peter was endowed with universal primacy by virtue of his association with Christ and that when he died, his See (Rome) devolved into a See having no special juridical or ecclesiastical authority, adopting the heretical notion of “primus inter pares.”

How do we know that this is the interpretation of that canon? By the second clause in it, which states “or that the Roman Pontiff is [denied to be] the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy”.

The essential breakdown of the canon is that if anyone believes that the See of Peter did not retain the primacy after his death, or that the Primacy is held by another See/Prelate (such as Constantinople as the Orthodox seem to hold), they are anathema.

How do I know this is the correct interpretation?

Per the document itself, the Chapter 2 subtitle:

The Catholic Encyclopedia concurs:

I’m sorry, but you’ll have to find another argument from infallible doctrine to argue from, but I don’t believe you’ll find one.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is correct, but re-read the canon—IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS PETER WILL HAVE PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS------IT THEN MENTIONS THE PRIMACY–OK FINE—IF THE LECTION OF A POPE IS NOT POSSIBLE NOW THEN PETER DOES NOT HAVE PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS-----THUS THE CANON MAKES NO SENSE----SO, FOR THE CANON TO MAKE SENSE THERE HAS TO BE A WAY A POPE CAN BE ELECTED, AND THIS MUST BE ABNLE TO BE KNOWN------THANKS!!!
 
Also, if the sedevacantist position is true then almost certainly there can never be a Pope elected that the Catholic faithful can know for certain (or even a reasonable degree of certainty) is the Pope-----is this Catholiscism–?so either u deny the sedevacantist position or admit that the election of another Pope is almost if not def impossible
 
The bottom line is this–I Think it is very clear from Vatican I that God has intended for Peter to have successors in perpetuity. That there will be always a way for the Catholic church to elect a Pope. Sedevacantism simply doesnt have that. If you are a sedevacantist you almost have to argue that there will not ever be another Pope elected. I beleive this is clearly against the teaching of Vatican I. Maybe this is the reason the Dimonds seem to be hiding.
 
Victory5 said:
The bottom line is this–I Think it is very clear from Vatican I that God has intended for Peter to have successors in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
Yeh, about as clear as Vatican II intended for one pope in each diocese. 😃
 
Victory5 said:
Your interpretation is correct, but re-read the canon—IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS PETER WILL HAVE PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS------IT THEN MENTIONS THE PRIMACY–OK FINE—IF THE LECTION OF A POPE IS NOT POSSIBLE NOW THEN PETER DOES NOT HAVE PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS-----THUS THE CANON MAKES NO SENSE----SO, FOR THE CANON TO MAKE SENSE THERE HAS TO BE A WAY A POPE CAN BE ELECTED, AND THIS MUST BE ABNLE TO BE KNOWN------THANKS!!!
Click to expand...
The manner of election for a Pope has never been a fixed process. It can be election through the College of Cardinals. Historically, papal elections took place simply through a consensus of the episcopal hierarchy and the people of Rome, so there is nothing canonically requiring the presence of a College of Cardinals; this is entirely a matter of discipline.

As far as the canon is concerned, the perpetuity in question has nothing to do with election. Absolutely nil. There entire point of that chapter of Pastor Aeternus is to forever solemnly refute the belief of the Orthodox heretics that primacy ceased with St. Peter or that the primacy is held by another of patriarchal Sees. It says that the primacy of power over the Universal Church is perpetual, not that there has to be timely election. If it were dealing with that, then it would be disproved by interregnums, which historically have lasted several years at least. You’re reading something into it where nothing exists. There is absolutely nothing preventing a long interregnum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top