The Dimond Brothers and their Blatant Contradictions
Heretics will drag you to Hell, "Imposing" or Not
Feast Day of St. Hermenegild
Catholic Marrying Heretics: Forbidden and Condemned
But first, I will publish an email exchange between Peter Dimond and myself. It is completely unaltered. Here is the exchange:
Would you be an interested in a recorded telephone concerning our position on receiving sacraments, etc?
The only condition is that you would not give out your website, you would go by David or David L., and you would address me as Peter if you called me anything. What do you say?
Also, the debate should be confined primarily to that issue, and not venture into your other views (Leo XIII, etc.), although separate debates on those issues is not out of the question. We would like to try to confine debates to specific topics. Perhaps Frank is interested, if you aren't?
Bro. Peter Dimond
A recorded telephone conversation is fine. I am not interested in formal structures, but a reasonable conversation between men. Surely you will be patient enough to wait for me to prepare my schedule, considering we cannot reasonably foresee the length of the discussion? It may have to be near the end of Lent, or perhaps after Easter.
I accept no conditions and I make no promises in regard to what I will or will not say, saving only that I will not resort to vulgarity, emotionalism or unseemly speech. If you feel the need to cut out portions of the conversation once you have your copy thereof, I cannot stop you.
I will call you Peter, because as a man, you have the right to go by whatever name you choose.
May God grant you great graces this lent, unto embracing all the true Catholic positions.
While I appreciate the fact that you are able to discuss my proposal for a debate in more mature fashion, it's obvious that you do not accept the offer to debate that specific topic.
>>>I accept no conditions>>>>
You don't agree to not give out your website, and you don't agree to debate and stick to that specific topic. Not giving out your website was a very reasonable proposal (along with the few others), especially when we consider that (among other things) you took and plagiarized our article on the Apocalypse. You even removed our names.
I can understand why you don't want to stick to the precise topic proposed. False positions are more easily hidden when careful examination of the specific issues involved is avoided. However, I can only extend the offer and I did so.
Bro. Peter Dimond
Nonsense. The Catholic Faith is the sum of all its parts, thus it would be foolhardy and irresponsible for anyone to premeditatedly confine the subject matter, when ancillary topics may have an important bearing on the main topic. I have no problem focusing on the topic of your heretical and sacrilegious position concerning the sacraments. But to say "Oh I promise I won't say anything else," is absurd, when truths and principles of religion drawn from other aspects of the Faith can always serve to reinforce any one particular truth.
I have said I will have a discussion with you, but I suspect you fear mention being made of the MANY instances of your own self contradiction, hence your withdrawal. Correct me if I'm wrong, by accepting my reasonable terms. In fact, perhaps I will publicly state my terms for all to see and you may respond as you see fit. But I will await your private response first.
P.S. I probably write less than 40% of my articles (I edit 100% of them). Why? Because I, like you and every other theologian, saint, scientist, mechanic, engineer, inventor, etc., must stand in (sic - I meant to type "on") the shoulders of geniuses in order to know anything. If you guys were Catholic, I would just link to your site. But you are heretics, so sending people to you is like sending lambs to the slaughter. But when you tell some truth, it should not die with you, just because you are liars, but can be presented without the attachment to your errors.
But I find it incredibly telling that you always come back to "our material", "our material", "our material", as though you have some kind of copyright on the truth. I have my doubts as to whether you have not done the same you are accusing me of anyway. Patrick Pollock comes to mind. Maybe I'm wrong. It doesn't matter anyway, it is not an accusation, but an expression of my doubts.
You have made it clear that you will not debate a precise topic. That's how debates are done, but you can't do that because each time your position is carefully analyzed on any of these topics, it is blown apart. That's what would happen in a debate, and why you didn't accept such an offer. You missed your chance anyway, since another radical schismatic accepted the offer to debate the issue and we did so. It has been covered, and the errors you and others espouse were exposed.
So, if you post a comment about this matter, be honest and make it clear that 1) I challenged you (not the other way around) and 2) you refused to accept a debate about a topic. You would only accept some kind of open-ended discussion about your views in general that might touch on the topic, and you accepted no conditions. That's ridiculous. People aren't interested in your views in general, and your refusal to debate a topic proves that you cannot hold up to careful scrutiny. (The fact that your ridiculous views don't hold up under careful scrutiny is clear to anyone who carefully examines your outrageously false assertions and errors on Leo XIII's alleged heresies.)
As an example, I recently debated someone on Pope Honorius. While I have other theological disagreements with the individual I debated, we stuck to the topic and didn't get into his various views because it was a debate about a topic. There was no need to debate all of Michael Creighton's various beliefs. In fact, if we had veered off into a discussion about our other disagreements then the debate would have been two or perhaps three or even four times as long. You also refused to not give out your website, so it's a moot point.
As far as my alleged self-contradictions, there are none. You don't know what you are talking about. Your views are absurd, and your position and egregious errors were (further) completely exposed in the debate I just engaged in. There's really nothing else to say on the matter except for this:
You were just as "confident" in your false views when you rejected the sedevacantist position and defended the New Mass. That was after you had been a sedevacantist and saw all the evidence of the antipopes' heresies. You were just as "confident" then as you are now. We also have an e-mail from you to another in which you vehemently asserted that the Council of Trent's text definitely teaches baptism of desire; and now you assert just the opposite. That's not new information you came across, but looking at the exact same quote you vehemently asserted one thing and now (just as confidently) the opposite. You have no conviction, and you believe in nothing.
Bro. Peter Dimond
No, I have not made it clear at all that I will not debate a precise topic. I WILL debate a precise topic. Now it is clear.
But hat (sic - I meant to type "what") is clear to me is that you are making use of an escape clause in your original email in order to avoid a recorded discussion with me.
Now, rather than respond to the remainder of your distortions, I will merely go to your last email and highlight all of the creative embellishments that you have made (see the highlighting above), wherein you have put words into my mouth which I never actually conveyed to you, but you have instead taken whatever meaning you want to from my words, however incorrect such a supposed meaning may be. Truly your use of creative licence does not restrict itself to what you call the Catholic Faith.
The remainder of your email, especially where you attack me for sins that I have repented of years ago now, appears as nothing more than hubris to make you feel superior, as though you never found yourself confused and sinful, or as though you never changed a position, or as though you are, were and have always been always right.
Please send me the link to your debate.
Update, May 22nd: He never answered at all.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supp., Q. 38, Art. 2: "When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which he had of conferring Orders [...] Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion."
A heretic priest may NOT effect the sacraments.
A heretic priest should NOT effect the sacraments.
A layman can ask the sacraments from heretics.
A layman may NOT ask the sacraments from heretics.
A layman should NOT ask the sacraments from heretics.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, ex cathedra: "But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity — namely Father, Son and holy Spirit — and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: "But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the Church does."
For more in depth discussion and proofs concerning all these statements, please begin at the article: On the Validity of Sacraments.
This is not an exhaustive analysis of everything that was said in the debate, as much of the interaction between the two men was either frivolous, negligible or repetitive. However, the main points brought up by Peter have been presented and refuted.
This context for the canon is important. Remember it. The canon continues.
"[...] But if the charge brought against the bishop is of an ecclesiastical kind, then the characters of those making it should be examined, in the first place to stop heretics bringing charges against orthodox bishops in matters of an ecclesiastical kind. (We define "heretics" as those who have been previously banned from the church and also those later anathematised by ourselves: and in addition those who claim to confess a faith that is sound, but who have seceded and hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with us.)"
It is also worth noting that self professed Catholics who adhere to the heretical antipopes fit the definition of heretics given above, par excellence, in that they "claim to confess a faith that is sound" and "hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with" the true Pontiffs. For example, did Benedict XVI himself not say that Vatican II was a "counter-syllabus", that is to say a RIVALRY against the salutary condemnations given against modern errors by Pope Pius IX? Yes he did. Publicly and openly.
The canon continues:
Most importantly, the context of this canon is disciplinary and has to do with preventing heretics from accusing bishops. It has nothing to do with the reception of sacraments, and Dimond is grasping at straws. However, this is an example of how the Dimonds 'win' their debates. They present portions of quotations to their opponents, which superficially sound like they support their argument, but when taken in context, either do not support it at all, or even contradict it.
The rest of the canon:
"Similarly, those who are already accused are not permitted to accuse a bishop or other clerics until they have proved their own innocence of the crimes with which they are charged. But if persons who are neither heretics nor excommunicates, nor such as have been previously condemned or accused of some transgression or other, claim that they have some ecclesiastical charge to make against the bishop, the sacred synod commands that such persons should first lay the accusations before all the bishops of the province and prove before them the crimes committed by the bishop in the case. "
"Struck with the sword of anathema"
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologic, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 10, Art. 7: "[I]t is necessary to dispute in public about the faith, provided there be those who are equal and adapted to the task of confuting errors; since in this way simple people are strengthened in the faith, and unbelievers are deprived of the opportunity to deceive, while if those who ought to withstand the perverters of the truth of faith were silent, this would tend to strengthen error. Hence Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 4): "Even as a thoughtless speech gives rise to error, so does an indiscreet silence leave those in error who might have been instructed.""
Just as a catechumen would have been permitted to join parts of the Mass, on account of his placing himself in subjection to the Church (by which fact he is agreeing to be subject to the rites of the true religion and the true God), the mixed marriage was only ever permitted when the non-Catholic spouse pledged complete spiritual subjection to the Church in all things relating to the marriage, namely agreeing to raise the children Catholic, to let them attend Catholic school, Catholic worship, and promised to keep silent about any heresy. In other words, mixed-marriages, when allowed by the Church, were NOT communion with heresy (since heresy was given no voice or freedom whatsoever), but a complete subjugation of the heretical spouse to the Catholic spouse in all matters of religion, insofar as the contract of marriage was concerned.
Please also read:
Summo Iugiter Studio
St. Augustine, To Consentius, Against Lying: "Let us do evil that good may come? A thing which you see how the Apostle detests."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 64, Art. 5, Obj. 3: "Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because "evil must not be done that good may come" (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever."
Final note: I fell for the Dimonds' lie once too (before I started this blog). I was stupid. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?