What the Dimond brothers didn't tell you about BOD and BOB - Baptism of Desire and Blood

 Among the information most Dimond brothers supporters (and the Dimonds themselves) ignore, is the fact that although the Dimond position on BOD and BOB (necessity of baptism for salvation) is correct; yet BOD and BOB are also correct and part of the Christian revelation, this being one reason why the Solemn Magisterium has not explicitly condemned these doctrines (BOD and BOB) by name. This paradox can be explained, and it can be explained in a way promisingly able to overcome and win over the heretical baptism of desire advocates. Unfortunately, the Dimond brothers are of the opinion (or rather staunch conviction) that the resolution and/or explanation below to this controversy (that I give) is a deception from hell and came from Satan himself, because in private they described as such any information I should bring forth (that is coming from me as a source) pertaining to Christian Revelation. They reasoned so, apparently, to a considerable degree out of unfamiliarity with the points brought up. Thus, those not inclined to believe the Benedictines only will easily or probably benefit from the information below.

[Added remark: one apparent Dimond brothers supporter repeatedly (and against my protest) interpreted my above saying that BOD and BOB were not condemned by name with a reason as meaning I believe these doctrines or reached the conclusion regarding their validity (given qualifications) because they were not condemned by name. He understood or wished to understand me as saying that because they were not condemned by name it follows like in a deduction that they are true. This is not what I said, neither I meant to present this sidenote as having any important or primary bearing in way of establishing my demonstration. I gave [him] the following example: the filioque omission in the Constantinople Creed is connected to the validity of the filioque insofar as the Creed did not condemn it and could not have done it. Thus the truth of the filioque clause is one reason why to Roman Catholics the Creed did not condemn it, nevertheless the omission in and of itself does not prove or seem to prove the filioque clause. The apparent Dimond brothers supporter basically did not believe a single word I said in trying to explain it, it not being manifest that he sufficiently attempted to understand. He will apparently hold to his dying breath that according to me from the noncondemnation  of BOD and BOB it automatically follows or is proved these doctrines are true (that is, in way of deduction), just as from the fact every rock is solid, and onyx is a rock, it follows or is proved onyx is solid.

Thus, as this indicates, I couldn't get a Dimond supporter to get through the small ancillary or secundary short preface [that isn't really meant to prove anything seriously] to the main text without misreading me, to the point of him characterizing my supposed position/positions as "pretty strange".

The total number of times I attempted to explain my meaning with a reply, before this man flatly got out of the conversation without recognizing I don't hold what he said I do, was at least six. From experience, and to be frank, I should say I am afraid this is just a foretaste of the kind of treatment I'm likely to get. ]  

The text below is from my book "Commentary on the Secret of La Salette" whose free pdf file access is given further down the page:

                                *     *     *

Another point is that in Matthew 24:2, the passage in which Jesus prophesies before his disciples the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (a destruction that symbolizes the loss of validity of the practice of Judaism, according to a Catholic commonplace and as indirectly suggested in a papal dogmatic definition); the disciples understand precisely this prophecy as signifying the degeneration of Judaism, and the being cursed in the future all who’d put their trust in it (as a degenerate substance), inasmuch as the disciples inquire about when would come the "consummation of the world" (an expression that recalls the saying "It is consummated!"). In John 2:19 Jesus explicitly associates the destruction of the temple with the destruction of his own body (Crucifixion); as if his body (as well as the Temple) were associable with the notion of a primary and external [or acidental] expression of the divinity with its accompanying knowledge ("ark"). The reference to "consummation" in Matthew 24:3, from the Greek Textus Receptus, in effect, is συντελείας (synteleias), which also contains the notion of "tele". What apparently happened on February 11, 2013, is that God, by sending the two lightnings, promised to take revenge on the Post-Vatican II Church in a similar way to how he took revenge on Judaism by allowing the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and thereby indicating the transference of the primary external, or accidental, sign of the divinity/knowledge ("ark") into a different place. Like the cursed fig tree (which represents the "tree in the center of paradise"), Judaism withered and ceased to bear fruit. In the same way this "is consummated" for the Post-Conciliar Church. If God allowed the Temple of Jerusalem, alluding to the glory of Israel and the wisdom of Solomon, to be destroyed and not one stone left upon another of the building; neither it is manifest that he will leave St. Peter's Basilica intact (on the contrary, from the Prophecy of St. Malachy, Rome will be destroyed). Similarly, just as early Christianity was destined to project itself onto the world and intervene profoundly and dramatically in it, the remnants of true Christians apart from the Post-Conciliar Church are destined to the same projection (and to the many dangers associated with that projection, corresponding to the threat of the river vomited by the dragon against the woman clothed with the sun during her exile in the wilderness, Revelation 12:15).

 

The connection between the degeneration that the lightning foreshadows with regard to the Post-Conciliar Church and the "solar eclipse" [corresponding to John Paul II in its turn], therefore, is that in John Paul II we have the coming "antichrist" (singular) of which St. John speaks, with maximum subtlety and insidiousness, and in the sequence, or in the aftermath, as the moon departs from the sun and is thrown to earth (lunar eclipse), "many antichrists" will appear, with increasing obtuseness and frankness. 1 John 2:18: "Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour." The solar eclipse is the maximum insidious ambiguity between good and evil, the lunar eclipse is the unveiling of the dragon and his real intention and works, these works corresponding to the collapse of the Tower of Babel (a collapse that also corresponds to the Gadarene pigs possessed by demons that cast themselves into the river, and that are associated with tombs or buildings as spectral ruins [Mark 5:1-20], in parallel with the prediction of the destruction of the Temple [Matthew 24] ​​being associated by narrative proximity with calling the Pharisees "sepulchers"). The solar eclipse, in this, also corresponds to the "first sign seen in heaven", the woman's giving birth/the woman in labour; while the lunar eclipse corresponds to the "second sign seen in heaven". As the two lightnings over St Peter's Basilica are technically signs seen in the sky, they correspond [as opposed to coincide with without qualification] respectively to the two signs seen in the sky in the apocalyptic context: "It is consummated" [τετέλεσται ("Tetelestai")].

 

Another parallel between the Wedding at Cana and the Crucifixion passage is that Jesus said "My hour is not yet come" (John 2:4), and in John 19:27 (the Crucifixion passage) it is said: "And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own." The "hour" referred to in these two passages is the hour when "It is consummated!", that is, when death and the recondite transfer (of the external religious sign associable to the "ark") intersect by virtue of an underlying unity, as in the underlying unity that exists between evil and good (bad wine and good wine referred to in the Wedding). In performing the miracle of the wedding (turning water into wine), Jesus implicitly conceded that, contrary to what he had indicated ("my hour is not yet come" John 2:4), the hour had come, that is, the "consummation " signified by the unexpected appearance of the "good wine" (from the "beginning"/eternity, "the recondite transfer") paradoxically simultaneous with the predictable or palpable moment of the "worse wine" (from the "last hour" or "Crucifixion", 1 John 2:18). For this reason, from that moment onwards, the disciple who could be associated with intimacy or familiarity with Christ ("inside") took Mary (a sign of the New Covenant) for himself. Significantly, the Wedding at Cana passage is immediately followed by the passage about how Jesus (specifically in the company, among others, of his mother, the latter's company is something the Pentecost biblical passage suggests is always an important narrative detail, although subtle) enters into a conflict with the moneychangers in the temple and promises them that if they destroyed the Temple He would raise up the temple (consummation) in three days. Now, in the Crucifixion, on the other hand, Christ complains (in Hebrew) of the abandonment of God, and this is interpreted (because of a phonetic/vocabulary similarity), by some spectators, as a complaining about the abandonment on the part of Elijah (who was then an ancient prophet Scripturally understood as destined to return miraculously). The Old Testament passage concerning the Chariot of Fire that takes Elijah to heaven (2 Kings 2:11) and separates Elijah from Elisha, Elisha who would henceforth carry the spirit of Elijah; it (the passage) holds the symbolism that the chariot wheels, in their common axis, or in their mutual communication from the bar of the common perpendicular axis, correspond (each wheel) to Elijah and Elisha respectively. These wheels, one in the more intellectual or hidden sphere (Elijah), the other more external (Elisha), also correspond, respectively, to the two moments of the saying “It is consummated” [τετέλεσται ("Tetelestai")]. Just as this saying is twofold, Jesus' apparent cry for "Elijah" is twofold. In Matthew 17:12 it is said by Jesus that "Elijah is come" in the person of John the Baptist, who corresponds in the symbolism of the wheels to Elisha. Consequently, the "wheel" corresponding to "Elijah" himself, in parallelism, is the Virgin Mary, or is strongly associable with her, since it was her approach that specifically inspired John the Baptist. Luke 1:41 even states that John the Baptist, in his mother's womb, began to jump as soon as his mother Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting. The apparent complaint of the abandonment of Elijah (and therefore the apparent complaint of an abandonment of Mary) on the part of Jesus, therefore, was the complaint of the abandonment of the spiritual gratification proper to the "ark" in relation to Himself as associable to the destruction destined temple; an abandonment in order to bring about the "consummation", i.e. the transfer of the religious axis; from the "secularly imposing temple" itself, rendered sterile by its own externality, to a " recondite vessel" with unsuspected and benign content; transfer on which the giving to others the saving witness of obedience through the sacrifice of earthly comfort depended; or, in corresponding language, transfer upon which depended the giving of the encouraging witness of not being saved by "names," but by faith that works through charity.

 

At the Wedding, the apparent cruelty of Jesus (evil) to Mary brought an underlying kindness, namely, the keeping of Mary from hastening the witness of the suffering of Him whom she loved (good). On the other hand, Mary's willingness to promote the "best wine" of the "beginning", despite the fact that this has a counterpart in exposing Jesus to the sacrifice of tasting the "vinegar" or "worst wine" of the "last hour", can be seen as cruel (evil); despite the fact that it is this consummation the carrying out of the mission entrusted to Christ by the Father, described by Jesus as his "flesh" (John 4:34) in way of food. The correspondence between Mary and Eve (a correspondence that similarly discusses the underlying Unity between "beginning" and "last hour") is a theological commonplace, which makes all the more interesting, in both the Wedding and the Crucifixion, the prominent use of the word "woman". Genesis 2:23: "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken from man." Mary is the "flesh" consumed (secular world comparatively hidden and purified) in parallel with the consummation and carrying out the mission from the Father (sacrifice). Mary is an instrument chosen so that, having His own flesh consumed by the sacrifice (abandonment of "Elijah"), He could also consume His reward; in the wake of what was recalled by the disciples at the event of the moneychangers in the temple, John 2:17: " The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up."

 

In the Crucifixion, Mary's apparent cruelty (evil) is signified by this allusion to "Elijah" (abandonment), which had an underlying kindness, namely, allowing the beloved disciple to take Mary for himself and be saved, etc. (good). The bestowal of "good wine" is the bestowal of the contents of which Mary had become the vessel or receptacle. And to make this bestowal Jesus needed to "drink vinegar" or "worse wine" (precisely what he does during his Crucifixion), and confront "his hour". However, he associates thirst and taking the vinegar with consummation, and externally affirms or confirms the saying about consummation precisely after taking the vinegar; in a context where the consummation is precisely alluding to the paradox of unexpected good wine taking the place of expected worse wine. This passage, therefore, seems to suggest the fact that on the cross the vinegar was miraculously made wine through Mary (as a paradoxical and discreet agent, as at the Wedding), to signify that she had received the "power of Elijah" (the power of spiritual gratification from a discreet sphere), like Elisha received. This is consistent with the correspondence between the Ark and the number "three" supposing an intermediation between what is sensible and what is supersensible [or spiritual], by means of the psychic realm (as the three witnesses of 1 John 5:8); in other words, this is consistent with this intermediation of the "power of the ark" effecting what it signals and signaling what it effects. This latter point is suggested, for example, by the parallelism between the vessel in which the vinegar is contained during the Crucifixion, and the pots or vessels of water during the Wedding, especially if the Wedding vessels were explicitly referred to as used in Jewish religious rites of purification, and also for religious rites of purification the aromatic plant called "hyssop" was used, consumed by Jesus together with the vinegar (the miracle in question of serving the good wine in place of the worse wine, in spite of an advanced hour, corresponding to the idea of ​​"purification"). This allusion to a Jewish rite marks the underlying unity between the Old and New Covenants. Furthermore, the notion of this double miracle of the wines, which can be associated with the contents of the ark, is also a notion continuous with the double character of saying "It is consummated!" [τετέλεσται ("Tetelestai")]. When tasting the wine at the height of the testimony of the Passion or the apparent abandonment, Christ played the role of the Wedding’s head of the servants, tasting the wine. The English term for "chief of servants" (Douay-Rheims version) is "steward", which etymologically connotes "taster", that is, someone who suspends judgment until he has carefully pondered, tried, or measured something. It is not, though, that this judgment was not known in advance, just as it is not that Christ granted God's abandonment of Him.

 

However, that Christ submitted to taste the worse wine, knowing beforehand that it was the good wine (consummation); and that he has beheld apparent abandonment (evil) foreknowing and confirming consolation (good); such are complementary paradoxes alluding even to the need to be baptized by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:14-15, passage in which Christ speaks of the need for the "fulfillment of all righteousness", the idea of ​​"consummation" corresponding to the idea of " fulfillment" and "sum") knowing that it was John who needed to be baptized. It alludes, in short, to the need to become man, knowing that eternal divine rest makes all divine non-fulfilment impossible.

 

This paradox is applied to the "Elijah theme" in parallel with John the Baptist. It is a discussion that embraces the theme of the necessity of baptism for salvation. According to Origen, the Old Testament passage (2 Kings 2:8, etc.) in which Elijah and Elisha cross the Jordan River (the same river in which John the Baptist baptizes) in a miraculous way (as in the parting of the Red Sea), is referred to by St. Paul as a figure of baptism. And just as Elisha miraculously crosses the Jordan twice (to signify his having received a "double" portion of Elijah's spirit), so baptism is a "double effect" that signals the connection between heaven and earth for the "fullness of all righteousness" as in "It is consummated!" [τετέλεσται ("Tetelestai")], meaning the empire or intervention of God over all realms of reality; since, according to St. Gregory Nazianzen, all things are relative to God, because God is of all things.

 

Consequently, the double lightning on February 11, 2013 over St. Peter's Basilica was also an expression of divine zeal in favor of the necessity of baptism, as defined by different Ecumenical Councils and infallible papal definitions. The double lightning is, therefore, a vindication of the Dimond Brothers in their profession of faith on the necessity of baptism. On the other hand, it is in spite of this a further explanation of why the heresy of "baptism of desire" (meaning baptism is unnecessary), also called "baptism of the spirit", was something accepted [without being “baptism of desire” magisterially defined] by a number of saints without bad faith; to wit; because the legitimacy of baptism of desire, insofar as it exists, simply means recognizing the sufficiency of eternal divine rest and fulfillment prior to receiving John's baptism [on the part of God] God "for the completion of all righteousness"; and the sufficiency of the "last hour" and "consummation" having come at the wedding as well as during the crucifixion. The answer to the controversy over the necessity of baptism, therefore, may be summed up in a single expression: "It is consummated!" [τετέλεσται ("Tetelestai")].

 

Baptism of blood is also just as legitimate as baptism of desire, and seems to be alluded to in Luke 12:50 as corresponding to the Crucifixion, which incidentally is a patristic commonplace, for example referred to by St. Chrysostom: “And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized. And how am I straitened until it be accomplished?" ("τελεσθῇ" [telesthí] translates "accomplished", similar to "consummated").

 

As a consequence of these considerations, it follows that the double lightning on February 11, 2013 over Saint Peter's Basilica can also be interpreted as a condemnation of those who despised what the Dimond Brothers taught, or preached contempt for their position in bad faith, making the controversy misguidedly portrayed in bad faith. The double number of the brothers (in parallel with the "double" quality of Elisha or John the Baptist) being a reinforcement of this.

 

To Benedict XVI the double lightning can be interpreted as saying: "Woe to you, Antipope Benedict XVI, you evil and perverse snake! Why did you not listen to my two witnesses about the necessity of baptism and the faith, if not because you are laden with guilt?!"

 

To Bishop Bernard Fellay, then Superior General of the Sacerdotal Society of Saint Pius X, the double lightning can be interpreted as saying: "Woe to you, Bernard Fellay, you evil and perverse snake! Why did you not listen to my two witnesses about the necessity of baptism and the faith, if not because you are laden with guilt?!"

 

To Bishop Donald Sanborn (with his associates), then quite prominent among false traditionalist Sedevacantists, the double ray may be interpreted as saying: "Woe to you, Donald Sanborn, you evil and perverse snake! Why did you not listen to my two witnesses about the necessity of baptism and the faith, if not because you are laden with guilt?!"

 

In this regard it is appropriate to point out that any clergyman who does not renounce comparative apparent secular advantage [for the sake of truth], as these last two false traditionalist bishops did not concerning the necessity of baptism (imagining that they could be saved "by names" because of the appearance of secular advantage of the heresy of baptism of desire); every cleric who does so pay reverence and submission to the Iron Maiden, because she signifies precisely this kind of corruption, is himself corrupt. And a sign that such Sedevacantist clerics are foolish enough to imagine that they can be saved by names is that among them the motto "Fenton, not Feeney" has arisen forcefully, in connection with the controversy over the necessity of baptism, in an attempt to suggest that the controversy boils down to adhering to a name among the theologians in dispute in a specific and restricted time and place; which necessarily implies overvaluing impression at the expense of conception or demonstration, an overvaluation of what depends on time and place to the detriment of what is independent of time and place (universality). If these false traditionalists had good faith and manliness, they would hasten to give the opinion they describe as Feeneyite every true advantage; not tacitly, resentfully and resistingly, as they do, but explicitly, generously and easily; among such advantages that Feeney was not condemned or censured under the allegation of heresy; and that he was censured in the context of defending precisely the necessity of the faith that basically all canonized Catholic saints defended during the initial 97% of Christian history (that is, those canonized up to Pius XII); not for defending the specific necessity of baptism (a topic that would only come to prominence later), etc. However, these men never play fair, they never explain these things in a rhetorically commendable fashion, but self-indulgently gratify themselves by keeping the matter obscure and misleading.

 

To what could God compare this generation of snakes and impostors? It is comparable to children sitting in the market place. Who crying out to their companions say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have lamented, and you have not mourned (cf. Matthew 11:16-17 and Luke 7:31-34, passages on the Pharisees' refusal to let themselves be influenced and baptized by John the Baptist, in parallel with the despising of the Dimond baptismal preaching). Despite seeing the sterile post-conciliar disdain for the content of the profession of faith, and its disdain for the purity of the profession of faith, this post-conciliar atmosphere in favor of an external and deceptive appearance of harmony; the false traditionalists thought that the Dimonds, when the latter sacrificed every ordinary secular advantage for the sake of the inner truth, were nothing more than petty eccentrics blind to their own ridicule. And the same false traditionalists; seeing the gathering strength of the Dimond cause, operating in the public arena, little by little overshadowing the secular advantage of false traditionalists, and impressing even individuals who did not take the Dimond position; [said false traditionalists] often accepted the the accusation that the Dimonds only intended to use their notable theological positions as a means of special aggrandizement in the eyes of the world, not as a legitimate profession of faith.

 

Woe to you Society of Saint Pius X, woe to you Sedevacantist clerics connected to Sanborn! For if they had been exposed to the truth brought by the Two Witnesses of God, to which you were exposed, many infidels, heretics, and schismatics would have been converted and saved, and would have repented with gratitude towards God. Thus it will be more tolerable for infidels and other heretics on the Day of Judgment than for you. And as for the supporters of the alleged orthodoxy of Benedict XVI, who called "unenlightened" the doctrine of traditional generations (e.g. Pope Martin V, Council of Constance), i.e. that the young children of the faithful who died before baptism are not saved: perhaps will these supporters who exalt themselves, and the sublimity of their position, together with Benedict XVI, go to heaven? They will, rather, go to hell.

 

The comparison of the Wedding event with a more hidden sphere ("first" τετέλεσται) and the Crucifixion with an external/secular sphere ("second" τετέλεσται); is also consistent with, in three Gospels (of Mark, Matthew and Luke), the Crucifixion being specifically associated with the witness of women, especially (from the point of view of the mention involved) Mary Magdalene; since women represent the secular or external world, which is seen in that the most universal duty of a nobleman (the order enforcer in the secular world) is marriage. Thus, the apparent question of Jesus to the Virgin Mary, at the Wedding, namely, “What had he to do with her?”, is a suggestion, among others, that the inner life is not apparently able to project itself into the secular world; albeit such has proved to be a feasible/confirmed feat because of the intervention of "the ark" (intermediation signified by the number three, the Wedding taking place on a “third day”). The temptation of the "woman" in Paradise was to take the fruit in the center, which represents the immovable mover (the untouchable and "first" inner realm), the trees with the other fruits corresponding to the external realm (secular and "second" world) [τετέλεσται]; and the apparent temptation of Mary at the Wedding, which she induced Jesus into in parallel with Eve having induced Adam, was precisely to take the fruit in the center instead of keeping it apart for the sake of better honoring it; this center-fruit, as the Hail Mary prayer indicates, is Jesus Himself, and Jesus' apparent rebuke to Mary was that the inner life corresponding to Him should not be desecrated by public exposure.

Click in the image bellow to access the pdf book file of "Commentary on the Secret of La Salette":

Click in the image bellow to access the free pdf content of the book "Commentary on the Secret of Fatima".

Click in the image bellow to access the free pdf content of the book "Commentary on the Three Days of Darkness".