QUESTION: I still am slightly confused and upset about a few things. On the one had you a sedevacantist says one thing and on the other hand another sedevacantist says another thing. Lets take the whole "baptism of desire" debate for instance. The Diamond brothers claim it is a heresy to believe in it and if you go to any Latin mass that supports it (like the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen) then you are damming yourself and will be in mortal sin dew to heresy. But obviously you disagree with them. Well neither of you are infallible so its like I am only 17 years old and am just looking for the fullest of Christ's church. But with all of you guys constantly disagreeing on different things I just do not know where and what to do.
ANSWER: There really is no particular credit to attach to one's being a sedevacantist. On a certain level all Catholics are sedevacantists (certainly in practice, even if not in open affiliation), and even the "cafeteria catholics" of the Novus Ordo as well. After all, even though they may apply the word "pope" to the man, clearly they are not using that word the way a Catholic would use that word, namely as a reference to a successor of Peter, an infallible source of truth in all matters pertaining to Faith and Morals, someone whose authority could scarcely ever be flouted, and certainly not on some continuous and ongoing manner. The "cafeteria catholics" put it quite bluntly: "The pope is wrong." Unfortunately for them, they might say that about some area where the man wasn't really wrong, e. g. contraception or abortion (though this "Francis" may well give those folks what they want, on his present showing so far). The only ways a person could say such a thing would be if either they do not believe in the papacy at all (in the case of, for example, a Protestant), or else are obviously not using the word "pope" to mean what a Catholic means by Pope. The "recognize and resist" communities (SSPX, non-sedevacantist "independent" priests, Remnant/TFP, etc.) may well put it more tastefully, but it amounts to the same thing. And in their case, the areas in which they say (however tactfully or diplomatically) that "the pope is wrong" are areas in which the man really IS wrong (an important distinction to remember).
Regarding your particular question of B.O.D. you seem to assume a direct parity between myself who is speaking on behalf of virtually every cleric of the Church throughout nearly 2,000 years of Church history, and the Dimond brothers who speak pretty much only for themselves, and in this only for a small coterie of individuals whose claims have not got a leg to stand on, and the rest of whom make no claim to being sedevacantist.
So this gets back to why Jesus Christ founded a Church and set popes and bishops and priests in charge of it, all carefully seeing to it that only approved men would be so appointed and recognized from the beginning until now. Just in the past several years, the "Feeney" position (denial of the existince of any baptism not with actual water) finally got its first bishop with the consecration of Neal Webster. Until that point, not a single bishop, Catholic, schismatic, or even heretical, has ever subscribed to such a claim. A handful of priests got roped into it, including Fr. Feeney himself and (most notably) Fr. Wathen, but the entire list of such could be numbered on one hand, and none of them predate Fr. Feeney himself.
If B.O.D. were such a "heresy" then one would have to wonder where the Church has been for that vast expanse of time prior to the consecration of Bp. Webster. (Bishop Slupski who consecrated Bp. Webster does not share the Feeney/Dimond position and would not have consecrated Webster had he known, but he didn't ask and Webster didn't say, until after it was done. Arguably, Webster has obtained his consecration through deception.) Granted, I myself am a mere layman, even as Peter Dimond is, but the parity between us ends there. Behind me in this is not only the clergy of the CMRI, but indeed all traditional clerical orders, SSPV, SSPX, and virtually all other remaining "traditionalist" priests, all "traditionalist" bishops (but one), and quite literally all of the entire pre-Vatican II Church as well (except Fr. Feeney himself personally). Behind them in this is ... nothing. Where can they send you to church? Where can they go, themselves? God set up a Church to arbitrate in all such matters of Faith and Morals, and the traditional societies and clergy are all that remains of that Church today. Just as with the ancient Fathers, where there is moral unanimity to be found, there also is found infallible truth. There are reasons that Jesus Christ set things up the way He did. The Church's position is clear, as expressed by the Church against Peter Abelard (a monk who alone took a similar position almost 900 years ago), against Fr. Feeney (and this was by Pope Pius XII mind you, not some post-Vatican II non-pope), and by all traditional Catholic societies today against the Dimonds and all others who follow in Fr. Feeney's footsteps in this.
Still, ignoring all that, Peter Dimond and myself are both "mere" laymen. If it were merely a matter of registering each of our positions on this, him being a prominent writer who takes one position, and myself as another prominent writer who takes the other position, then one ends up with exactly the confusion you express. However, the question itself is certainly worth looking at for itself, and quite interesting, as I have found. One can show the Church to have been correct in the above-mentioned denunciations of Abelard, Feeney, and Dimond by a close examination of the scholastic sources upon which all doctrines rest: Sacred Scripture, the Ancient Church Fathers, the Doctors, the Popes, the Ecumenical Councils, the known and long established practices of the Church, the Roman Theologians, the approved catechisms.
The unanimity of support for B.O.D (and B.O.B. which Feeney and Dimond also rejected, though Abelard did not reject) within all those sources is surprisingly strong, a great deal more than I expected upon entering into this investigation on my part. One has to wonder how the denial of B.O.D. ever got off the ground.
It is only upon reading the productions of Feeney followers (Abelard's writings in this are, so far as I know, all lost) that one finds out. It is done through lies, through faulty logic and through deliberate misrepresentations of what the sources actually say. Did you know that the Bible states that "There is no God." Yes, it really does say that. But before you start founding some society of Biblical Atheists, taking that as your chief prooftext, you might want to try looking it up in context. Because in full context the statement is "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Instead of merely registering one position versus another, how about taking the time to dig through the minutiae of all the details and see for yourself? A few years ago I wrote a series addressing this very subject in full detail. In the first part I talk about how things can be taken out of context (with other, further, examples). In the rest of my series I have made a point of including within each installment at least one (and sometimes more) revelation (and sometimes more) of some deceptive misquote on the part of Peter Dimond, or some other follower of that same error/heresy. I suggest you read this slowly, carefully, and at length, and especially where the Fathers and Doctors speak at length:
In addition, there are also three "interlude" segments which go between Installments 12c and 13:
These "interlude" segments include all the material specific to our present Church crisis which was excluded from the main series since that would be meant for a more general book and more general public (as explained in the introduction). The further segments were merely for the purpose of addressing additional Feeney followers, such as Vin Lewis and Adam Miller. So though not "complete," what you have should be sufficient. This should give you lots to think about.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: See, and this is why I get confused because this is exactly what the dimond brothers say only referring to people that do support B.O.D. and B.O.B. Basically there major argument against supporting this is that supposedly at the council of Florence it was 100% condemned to believe in any salvation out side the church at all.
ANSWER: Sounds to me like you get confused listening to the Dimonds; just don't listen to them anymore and then you won't be confused (grin!).
But all of this gets back to why there is a Church established by our Lord. You are still treating it as if "well, Griff Ruby says one thing, and Peter Dimond says the other." You are forgetting that there is also an infallible magisterium of the Church which also exists, and which backs up what I say in this 100%, and does not back them up in this at all.
Read the series (you have the links). I know they are long, but at age 17 I think it unlikely you will run out of time before you can complete them. One of the principle reasons why it is so long is that there are just so very many lies that have been told to you, and in my series each lie is carefully exposed in full, one after another, after another, after another, and so forth.
Cultivate a longer attention span. Short quotes out of context may sound pithy and persuasive, but abused as such they become mere sound bites, and it is a very poor education which is comprised of sound bites. They don't dare to show the context, the fathers and doctors and popes and roman theologians all writing at length on Baptism of Blood and Desire, in all places defending them. What you will not find is anyone expounding at such length to deny these established Catholic doctrines (until Fr. Feeney, Abelard's writings being apparently lost).
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Okay thanks a lot Griff Ruby. I will read it. I still think it would be interesting to see you debate the Dimond brothers though. Also do you know how I could get my hands on a real catechism.?
One of the best catechisms I know of is "My Catholic Faith." The Catechism of the Council of Trent is pretty good too, but more oriented towards the clergy than the faithful.
When buying "My Catholic Faith," do take care to avoid any edition newer than the 1960 edition. The 1961 edition (first one with two-color artwork, black and red) also introduces the first tiny drops of Novus Ordo poison. But 1960 on back is fine. There are good reprints of previous editions available. The true 1954 edition is most excellent, and has been reprinted by the Sangre de Christo (hardcover) and by the Refuge of Sinners (softcover). There is another edition by Sarto Press which claims to be 1954 but is actually some one or two years later edition (or else some mix of different editions. Even this is all pre-1960, so there is nothing wrong with it, but I do find its false claim to be a 1954 edition somewhat unsettling.
Go to bookfinder.com and search for Title: My Catholic Faith. For the other edition try Refuge of Sinners Publishing, www.JoyfulCatholic.com
TAN Books publishes the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
As for the idea of a debate, then let me know if you still think it would be necessary.