QUESTION: I just had a quick question. If you claim that "BOD" and BOB" are so obviously taught in catholic teaching than why is it that you refused a debate challenge from the Dimond brothers on that very topic? I really find that unsettling and i have noticed that a lot of these "traditional" clergy men all refuse the debate challenges. If all of you guys are so correct on this topic than why not debate these people that you see as heretics so maybe some people could benefit from it. If they are so wrong than please debate them and shut them down. The Dimonds do have some good points and i think you guys do too. But once again refusing all these debate challenges from them does not look good at all in your guy's book.
I apologize if my wording seems somewhat blunt and rude but i couldn't think of any other way to formulate these questions to you.
I beg for your response on this one.
Thanks a lot and God bless.
ANSWER: This challenge was put out to me basically at the outset of my Feeney series. I had by that point already found some few good and solid things (basically what was in my first 4 installments, not counting the details regarding the Council of Sens which were to be added later to Installment 3), but also knew that I would do better to defer such a thing until such time as I had marched through all the possible arguments and all the categories of evidence. In installment 12c, within which I discuss the response from the Dimonds to my series, I do make mention of this "challenge" as follows:
"The other private correspondence between us pertains to his challenge to a debate (over the telephone, presumably to be recorded by each of us, as a control), and my response to that challenge. Before my editor made his own response to this challenge in my behalf ..., I had already made my own response. The Dimonds claim that I refused, as if I were a coward (they actually use the word) unwilling to face them. The actual content of my response was somewhat different, but I prefer to keep that content private between myself and the Dimonds until the final installment of the second major round of these installments can be posted."
Unfortunately for this series of mine, I had really come to weary of it and have rested from it for a time, during which I have had a much bigger fish to fry (authority and jurisdiction of our traditional clergy). The remainder of my Feeney series would be a series of articles, each dealing with some other prominent Feeney follower (Brother Robert Mary, Brother Leonard Mary, Charles Coulomb also known as "Thomas A. Hutchinson," Vin Lewis, Richard Ibryani, Michael Mallone, and others, finally ending with a conclusion summing up the Church's teaching as hammered out to full detail under this particular heretical/erroneous attack, and offering some private opinions of my own about the whole matter. It is in that conclusion that I have long planned to reveal my actual response.
The most important thing about this response you might be able to glean from my comments in Installment 12c regarding the response from the Dimonds, namely that "#6 seems to be the last installment that any mention of theirs cites, before falling silent regarding my series." There may be an (uncredited) allusion to some point in Installment #8, but then that really is the end. Starting from Installment #7 and especially also Installments #9 to the end (#12c), all of my heaviest and meatiest stuff comes out, the doctors and fathers and popes and Roman theologians and catechists being brought to bear on the question, speaking at length upon it. To all of that he has no reply, and can have none.
You should also note (towards the end of 12c) the list of 112 evidences that the Church does officially teach BOB and BOD (a summary listing of the points carefully proven from Installments 1 through the first part of 12c), and (far more seriously as against the Dimonds and others who deny BOB/BOD), the 30 quotes which have been mangled by BOB/BOD deniers in their attempt to prove something which is patently false. Recall the huge mileage the "Reply to a Liberal" got from one single quote in Bainvel which seemed to read false, and then multiply that by about 30 to get a sense of the scope and scale of recrimminiation to which the Dimonds and others have exposed themselves.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: I honestly never did want to explore this issue. I hoped that finding the official teaching on this matter would be clear as day for me...but its not. I don't hold a position on this matter because i have not yet figured it out. Even after reading a large amount of your series it always seems like the dimonds have very good responses for everyone who believes in bod and bob. The bottom line still remains this though....The "traditional" clergy that you speak of still have never engaged in a debate with the dimonds on this matter. Even though the dimonds have challenged them multiple times. I don't understand why there has never been a debate on this matter yet. The "traditional" clergy should have destroyed the dimonds in a debate years ago but, it has never happened. I don't understand why. Once again if you and they are so correct on this matter why not prove them wrong and destroy them in a debate. Don't you believe that a good amount of people would benefit from this?
ANSWER: As I have indicated, they have not responded to Installments 7 and 9 through 12c (or anything later, though that no longer targets them and so might understandably not be of much concern to them).
Another idea: Run down the list of the 112 points discovered up to that point and see how many of them have a response anywhere on their site. Even the installments they did make some response to contain many further points which also remain unaddressed by them.
But then, scour their "Treatise" (as I call it throughout my series), which to this day remains their final and definitive statement on the subject (other than the few sorts of follow-up comments as those they made to some few details within my series), to assemble a list of "points" they make and then see if any of them remain unaddressed at least somewhere within my series.
A shining example is #80 of the 112, spoken of in the closing paragraphs of Installment 10b, namely that one can readily find where ancient Fathers, Doctors, Theologians, Popes, and Councils all speak "at length" regarding their support for BOB and BOD and what these doctrines mean and how they are meant to work, but against BOB and BOD one finds only short quotes, taken out of context, and often from the same sources who have defended BOB and BOD at length. Other than Peter Abelard (whose writings, if they survive, only attack BOD, leaving BOB accepted as true), one finds no such source until Fr. Feeney and those of his St. Benedict's Center.
Also consider that a legitmate debate can only occur where there is a legitimate question. The Holy Office, under Pope Pius XII, resolved this question officially and dogmatically (covered in extreme detail in Installment 11b), Rome has spoken, and yet they still wish to debate it? That is not legitimate.
This isn't to say that I would not enjoy a moderated public debate on the question someday, even so, but that I don't expect it to be possible. Private phone calls (even if recorded) in which they can and do interrupt at any point where things don't seem to be going their way hardly qualify as a moderated forum. Especially if recorded only by them, the recording could be deleted very easily if they lose or end up having to contradict themselves, and one has to wonder how many such "phone debates" with them will never see the light of day.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: They speak about the "excommunication" of father feeney in this audio (i will paste it bellow). I believe they made some very good points on the topic of his excommunication. I guess i have no choice but to "explore" deeply into this topic. So that answers that question. Also yes it is true that sometimes they do interrupt but in all honesty i believe everyone does that to a certain degree in a debate. (some obviously more than others) But they actually did a debate once with someone who believed in the Vatican ii church and they had a very professional debate with... time, a judge and a question/answer piece. so they are definitely capable of debating at a more scholarly level in my opinion. If you are serious about actually debating them though than i would love to see you father cekada bishop dolan bishop sandborn ect.... go at the dimonds in a debate that is professional and record by both sides. and maybe even filmed if possible. Maybe "true restoration" could film the debate and post it on their youtube Chanel. Once again if you guys are so sure of yourself's on this position why not take a chance like this and prove them wrong in person and on video?
Thanks god bless
As to the possibility of a live debate someday, who knows, it may happen one day. Would you care to finance the travel and accomodations and publicity etc. of such an event? As to debating the Novus ordo, it doesn't take much brains to defeat them utterly as they are so patently and stupidly wrong as to be intrinsically incapable of defending their new religion. In that, the Dimond's are just shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun.
I have explored the whole issue of Fr. Feeney himself and the nature of his excommunication in Installments 11a, 11b, and 13.