www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Two Completely Different Churches?

I speak of the Roman Church before and after Vatican II. I came across a monk named Bro. Michael Dimond, who says that the changes at Vatican II were so vast that the new mass is invalid, priesthood ordinations are no longer valid and the popes are now all antipopes and the See of Rome is vacant. This monk�s website is: http://mostholyfamilymonastery.com/ Does anyone on this forum hold views similar to this? If anyone as an opinion about this I would very much like to hear it!
-Adrian

Wow, thats pretty extreme.

I doubt anybody here holds these beliefs, even us Orthodox.

[sorry; I posted to the wrong thread.]

The Brothers Dimond are part of the extreme view that there is no Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant. He has excommunicated everyone who follows Pope Benedict.

No, I don't believe that many on this Forum support their extreme views. I know I don't.

A bit extreme. If they are right we are all doomed to hell. I suspect that he is not.

CDL

Peter is still in Rome.

-- John

Quote

The Brothers Dimond are part of the extreme view that there is no Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant. He has excommunicated everyone who follows Pope Benedict.

Dear Dr. Eric,

I read the part about Pope Benedict XVI being a heretic. He said that the Pope prayed in a Mosque, crossed his arms in Muslim fashion, and turned towards Mecca.

I believe we are allowed to pray anywhere, are supposed to face East, and if I recall correctly, my grandmother told me to cross my arms in front of me when praying. So much for that!

I can't help but hope that he was blessing the Muslims when doing so. What can be better for those who are far from the true God, than a blessing from a Pope.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Dear Friends,

The Muslims are not heretics.

The only thing remotely connected with them in this regard is "hair ticks."

Alex

Islam = Satanic Cult of Death Worship.

Enough said.

As much as I respect the Pope, praying in a mosque was wrong.

I do understand that he did it to appease the maniacs who were burning Churches and killing nuns after the Pope made His comments on the 'prophet'. (His comments were absolutely 100% true I might add)

Alex,

Could you elaborate? Perhaps they are a false religion and not heretics. Sounds like a strain over words. They reject Christ as God. They postdate Christianity. Sounds heretical to me. Perhaps your deeper insight would help me see your point.

CDL

I do not argue this point, I merely point it out that Hillaire Belloc argued that Islam is most properly considered a heresy and not a different religion.

Jason

I believe the Jews, the Muslims and the Pagans (Hindus, Buddhists and other) to be Infidels, and the Protestants to be heretics (there are some sects that are even apostatical by the way).

Regarding Dimond and his followers they're "Feeneyites". They're not Traditionalists but Integrists, they are very much like the Matthewite faction of the Old Calendarists in Greece. They do view the modern Roman-Church, the Orthodox Churches and even the other Traditional Catholic groups as devoid of grace.

Dear Alex,

When Mohamedism first popped up, it was considered a heresy by the Church. Still in all, I consider it very smart of Pope Benedict to worship in a Mosque. By prostrating and crossing his arms the way they do, he did something that the Muslims could relate to...and after all, isn't that what we want? How else can these people be reached?

As for facing Mecca, is it east of Istambul, or was I wrong by stating that in my post? I recall reading how a crusader saw a Muslim praying towards Mecca, and lifted and turned him towards the East. But that Crusader was probably in the Holy Land. I think I'd better look at a map so I'll know what I'm talking about.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Quote

I believe the Jews, the Muslims and the Pagans (Hindus, Buddhists and other) to be Infidels, and the Protestants to be heretics (there are some sects that are even apostatical by the way).

Dear Mexican,

The Muslims were formed predominatly from the heretic sect of Arianism...or so they say. No doubt to prove their claim for the land now called Spain. Many of their customs, such as the prostrations, etc., are copied either from Christians, or pre-date Christianity and Islam and were part of what was common in that part of the world. Oddly enough, there is a statue from ancient Greece showing a girl from Asia Minor. She had her head dress crossed over, covering the bottom part of her face. This also seems to have been the custom in the Eastern Roman Empire, more commonly called Byzantium.

Buddhists do not believe in one god. Judaism forms the basis of Christianity. Without the progression of religion that occurred with Judaism, Christianity would not have existed, and the Hindu's basically are pagans. They believe in many gods...like the ancient Greeks, and Germans.

Protestants are not heretics...or at least haven't been in the past. Otherwise, the Orthodox Church would not have belonged to the National or World Council of Churches. They have always been recognized as true Churches, although incomplete.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Returning to the OP.......

Not having looked at the site, but having plenty of experience with such arguments, I'd have say this is another example of what Papa Ratzi night call "neo-integrism". Integrism is an error that's a flip side (and reaction to) modernism:


Now, as far as my opinion, one could tackle this problem from a number of different angles.

But I'd tackle it from a simply ecclesiological standpoint: Jesus guaranteed that the Church - not only in its spiritual/eschatalogical sense, but also in the sense of the human institution composed of bishops, priests, laypeople, etc.- would prevail against the gates of hell. Therefore, we can be assured that the church - and presumably the majority or at least a significant minority - will stay faithful to Him until He returns.

In that sense, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the entire Church is wrong and that a small opinion is correct; in fact the opposite is true. Moreover, I would like to see how such a group reconciles their often quite ultramontane views of the pre-Vatican II papacy with the idea of papal infallibility.

Markos

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

Zenovia wrote:


I regard the WCC and these organisms as social forums, Churches (even the heretical Churches) have an important presence as witnesses to the human community because of their opinions and activities. However, this does not mean that all the members are in fact true Churches.

Christ never said that he had founded several Churches but one, and the idea that the Church consists of all men or all those who believe in Christ in a broad sense is false. The Church of Christ is that which is governed by the succesors of the apostles (the bishops) through the priesthood. Those who broke this succession can in no way be regarded as members of the Church.

If these people weren't heretics why are they no longer members of the Roman Catholic Church? In fact they were condemned by this Apostolic Church where their ancestors originaly came from. There's a whole list of heresies that this Apostolic Church condemned and all are held by these groups.

We Apostolic Christians have almost nothing in common with them, they do not have the Holy Mysteries and the Priesthood (Christ himself said that those who do not eat his body and drink his blood have no part in him), they believe that the Blessed Virgin gave birth to other children after Jesus, they do not venerate the saints, some believe that there will be a millenial kingdom and an earthy paradise which is a great departure from the doctrine of the Church, some even kept the Jewish Laws that were abolished by Christ, in fact no sect is identical to the other.

I understand, that you all share a common culture as Americans, Protestants and Catholics (and even Orthodox) alike but this is comparable to the common culture that the Maronites share with their Lebanese Muslim neighbours. Can we say that they both belong to the true religion?

They do have some aspects of Christianity but they are extremely incomplete as you said. How can the Church be true and incomplete at the same time?

I believe that the statement is not correct.

"Protestants are not heretics...or at least haven't been in the past. Otherwise, the Orthodox Church would not have belonged to the National or World Council of Churches. They have always been recognized as true Churches, although incomplete."

Protestants are heretics. Only certain Orthodox Churches have joined the "World Council of Churches" while the rest of Orthodoxy condemns such actions. The Romans Catholics and the Russian Orthodox in particular are not a part of the World Council of Churches because it is a heretical organization. There is only one True Church. (Think One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic not Many, one or some Holy, unCatholic, and some Apostolic)

I have been told (by an Orthodox Priest) that Satanists are part of the World Council of Churches. Like the Protestants etc., Satanists do not have a or the True Church.

I don't know of any Satanists, but I do know that the Catholics don't belong and the Orthodox have such problems with belonging that they had to set up a special commission to deal with the Orthodox concerns.

A curious website.

http://www.antichrist.net/index.shtml

CDL