" />
" />
" />
" />
" />| Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
| Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |  |
R.I. Responds – a Mass of Contradictions and Illogical Nonsense (PART 3)
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
NOTE: In recent months, this individual R.I. has actually denounced canonized Catholics saints as heretics. Specifically, he has denounced St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas as heretics. This proves what I have said about him, that he is a non-Catholic heretic who has literally founded his own sect. Some people couldn’t see it then, but perhaps they see it now. By denouncing as heretics canonized saints, he actually has put himself on the level of the Protestant reformers. He is now in the category of Protestant revolutionaries Martin Luther, John Calvin and other heretics (such as Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons) who founded their own “Churches.” He would literally have to hold that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy for centuries, by honoring and declaring as saints those he considers non-Catholic heretics, and that it is he who must come to “restore” the purity of the Gospel. He even said that, if he could, he would “bring St. Thomas Aquinas back from Hell, put his skin on him, rip it off, and then pour vinegar on his wounds!” Yes, R.I. actually said this while claiming to be Catholic (listen to part 4 of the audios below).Part 1- Introduction and quick background on these radical schismatics [9 min audio.]
Part 2 - In depth refutation of their false arguments regarding the Council of Basel and the salvation dogma [50 min. audio]
Part 3 - Refutation of the Argument that Canonizations are not infallible by virtue of the teaching of Vatican I [20 min. audio]
Part 4 - Exposing the demonic and shocking statements of the schismatic RI – the source for many strains of "traditionalist" schism [16 min. audio]
* Note: this is a part 3 against R.I. It presupposes some familiarity with the first two articles refuting him: Refuting R.I. and Our Challenge to Debate R.I. – Refused in Cowardly Fashion. On Feb. 25, 2005, R.I. came out with a new article that was, in large part, a response to my article against him. This is certain because much of it is a response to specific points that were first brought out in my article. In his article, he just digs himself deeper into contradictions.R.I. finally gives us a date
For years we have demanded that R.I. tell us when all the people above reason became heretics at the churches he describes in his abjuration. For years R.I. ignored this question, but he finally answered it in his recent article. He tells us that all exceptions to believing that John Paul II is the Pope ceased in 1997, with the promulgation of John Paul II’s heretical Catechism. At that point, he says, the heresies of the Conciliar Church were “institutionalized” in all of the churches (including the SSPX churches), so that all the baptized children reaching the age of reason in these churches became non-Catholic heretics. But in the same article, R.I. says that the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic sect that was founded by Paul VI in 1965. He admits that the Conciliar Church, a non-Catholic sect, was founded in 1965 with the promulgation of Vatican II. But he says that all the people at these non-Catholic churches didn’t become heretics until 1997! Thus, R.I. admits that people were attending the non-Catholic churches of a non-Catholic sect (the Conciliar Church), and even officiating at them as priests (such as Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio), for up to 32 years (1965-1997), and were still not necessarily heretics. Does anyone not see that this is a complete contradiction to his position? Does anyone not see what a death-blow this is to R.I.’s whole schismatic theology? It is a death-blow to his position because it proves that R.I. agrees with us that people become heretics and join non-Catholic sects when they become aware of the heresy and then obstinately reject the Catholic position. But R.I. has condemned that position as totally heretical! That which R.I. says is the root denial of the salvation dogma is exactly what he also teaches above. He teaches that people were attending these non-Catholic Conciliar churches for 32 years but still weren’t heretics because they weren’t aware of the issues! Does anyone fail to see the evil behind this totally blinded hypocrite? He condemns the true position (when we teach it) and then teaches the same thing when it is convenient for him. Let’s continue exposing this schismatic hypocrite. R.I. says that in order for all the children to become culpable at the age of reason, the heresy must be institutionalized in all the churches. This happens, according to R.I., when leader of the sect promulgates the heresies and binds them upon all of his subjects. But R.I. is wrong again; the heresies of the Conciliar Church were institutionalized (according to his definition) in all of the churches not in 1997, but in 1965, because Paul VI solemnly approved, promulgated and bound all his subjects to the heretical teachings of Vatican II. In his speech closing Vatican II, Paul VI also solemnly bound all the faithful to the decrees of Vatican II. Notice the bolded and underlined portion below: This, ladies and gentlemen, blows away R.I.’s entire article and his abjuration. It proves that, according to his own definition, the heresies of the Vatican II Church were institutionalized in 1965, when Paul VI bound all of his flock to accept the Vatican II heresies. I just proved that this happened in 1965. Hence, this means that R.I. would have to say that all people (above reason) at all the Conciliar Churches were non-Catholic heretics beginning in 1965, but he doesn’t! R.I. says that people were attending these non-Catholic churches – and even working at them as priests – for a whopping 32 more years and still could have been Catholics, until 1997! This proves: 1) that R.I. doesn’t know what he is talking about; for the heresies were institutionalized, according to his own definition, in 1965, not in 1997 as he says; and 2) he is a heretic who denies the salvation dogma according to his own criteria; because he composed a letter stating that we (the Dimond Brothers) deny the salvation dogma (which is NONSENSE) – for teaching that the children of sect members don’t become sect members at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace the sect’s heresy – when he teaches the exact same thing, by stating that people were attending a non-Catholic church for 32 years before they became members of the non-Catholic sect! Thus, by his own definition, he denies the salvation dogma, and he is a complete heretic who holds the “root heresy of the great apostasy.” R.I. is a complete abomination who is as blind as a bat, who doesn’t know what he is talking about. When the blind (such as R.I.) lead the blind, both fall into the ditch – the everlasting ditch of hell where he is headed. But there is more contradictory nonsense in his article: He says the heresies must be institutionalized in all the churches for all the children to become culpable heretics at the age of reason. He uses the Anglican sect as an example. (He thus admits that people were attending the Anglican churches for a period of time and were not heretics because Henry VIII didn’t yet “institutionalize” them. Thus, he again embraces our position, the very position he has condemned as heretical.) But, let’s think about this: in order for all the children to become culpable, he says, the sect’s leader must bind the whole sect to the heresies. But most Protestant sects don’t have a head who has bound them to anything. The Anglican Sect, which recognized Henry VIII as its head, was unusual in that it recognized a head. Most Protestants sects recognize no authority whatsoever and therefore the heresy could not be institutionalized (according to R.I.’s definition) in all Protestant churches even for hundreds of years. Therefore, R.I. is admitting that it’s acceptable to believe that certain people above reason at these Protestant churches (where the heresy has not yet been “institutionalized” by the promulgation of the heresy by the head of the sect, since the sect recognizes no head) may be Catholics! Anyone with an ounce of Catholic common sense can see that this totally contradicts his entire position, and embraces the very thing he calls heretical.R.I. is always contradicting himself because his position is false
The schismatic R.I.’s position on when people become heretics will always be contradictory, as we have proven again and again, because it is false. He fails to realize the truth that people don’t become heretics corporately, but individually. He fails to realize what we proved in the article, that the children of heretics become heretics, not at the age of reason – nor in a coruscating flash that instantly knocks everyone going to a particular priest for Mass outside the Church – but as soon as they obstinately reject a Catholic dogma or the authority of the Catholic Church. Clement VI teaches exactly what we taught in our article and what R.I. called heretical. But then R.I. teaches this same position at times (e.g., when he admits that people attending the Conciliar churches were Catholics from 1965 to 1997 until they obstinately embraced the heresy), but then rejects it at other times (e.g., when he says that all at these churches without exception became heretics in a sudden flash in 1997). He is thus a liar and a double-tongued heretic.Even if the heresy were institutionalized in 1997 it still wouldn’t prove his abjuration
I proved above that R.I.’s assertion that the Vatican II heresies were institutionalized in the Vatican II churches in 1997 is incorrect, as it happened (by the standard of his own definition) when Paul VI bound his flock to Vatican II in 1965. But what does John Paul II’s promulgation of the New Catechism have to do with R.I.’s declaration that all the people at the SSPX and other independent chapels are heretics “without any exception or excuses for ignorance”? The SSPX and other independent chapels don’t use the New Catechism, so his assertion that they are all heretics based upon the promulgation of the New Catechism is clearly false and schismatic. Further, just because the New Catechism was promulgated in 1997 doesn’t mean that everyone in those churches became a heretic at that very instant, just like everyone in the Vatican II churches didn’t become heretics the day after Paul VI promulgated Vatican II. R.I. is just making up things as he goes along; his schismatic heart is closed to the truth that they become heretics when they obstinately embrace the heresies in the New Catechism or the heresies of Vatican II or John Paul II or obstinately reject the facts proving that John Paul II is not Pope.R.I.’s own life is a good example to refute his schismatic theology
Before R.I. was a Sedevacantist, he believed that John Paul II was the Pope and attended various “traditional chapels,” including SSPX, etc. He believed that John Paul II was the Pope, even though he denounced his scandalous activities. He believed that one could not judge that John Paul II is not the Pope, and thought that Fr. Wathen’s book Who Shall Ascend, which denounces Sedevacantism, was excellent and “covers it all from A to Z.” R.I. wrongly thought that the Consecration of the bread in the new Mass is valid, and that Bishop Lefebvre was only a material heretic for teaching that souls can be saved in false religions. R.I. holds none of those positions today. Do I believe that R.I. was a heretic at that time? No, because he rejected what he knew about John Paul II’s scandalous activities as contrary to the Faith, and hadn’t seen Fr. Wathen’s position on Sedevacantism refuted. Nor had he seen his position on the New Mass being valid, etc. refuted. But, if he maintained those positions after they were refuted for him, he would have been a heretic – just like he is definitely a heretic and a schismatic now for denying the dogma that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (as I proved in “Refuting R.I.”) and condemning as heretics many people who are not.R.I. attempts to mitigate the effects of his schismatic blunder
In his article, while basically admitting that his position is indefensible, R.I. says in so many words that even if he is wrong about this it is not a big deal! R.I., your abjuration and your other declarations absolutely and without a doubt place you in schism. You have without a doubt created your own sect. You are in schism from all the Catholics at the independent “traditional” chapels whom you say are heretics who are not, both those under 14 and those above 14. If you weren’t a schismatic who rejects the obstinacy requirement for heresy, and who condemns people as heretics who are not (such as ourselves), then you would see the falsity of your other schismatic positions, such as: This is clearly false and schismatic. Just because a priest was ordained or consecrated by one of these men does not mean that the priest is a heretic or a schismatic, for he may not have been aware that such a Bishop was a heretic or a schismatic. If R.I.’s declaration above were true, we would have to say that all the priests ordained by the apostate Archbishop Cushing of Boston (the man who condemned Fr. Feeney) were heretics; but we cannot make that statement. A Catholic with common sense, who is not a schismatic, can clearly see the reasonability of this assertion and the unreasonability of the assertion of R.I. By rejecting the truth about what constitutes heresy, R.I. falls into all kinds of other schismatical and unnecessary declarations (as shown above). R.I., don’t mock God and attempt to justify your schismatic views and the ridiculous statements in your abjuration by saying: “what does it matter anyway.” It matters because it affects all of your other schismatic views.More attempted Justification from R.I. for his schismatic blunder
First, notice that R.I. says that this is now only his “opinion.” Interesting… He knows he cannot refute the facts, so he is abandoning the solemn declaration of #’s 31 and 32 of his abjuration. Now they are only “opinions.” If it’s just his opinion, then why did he have “Catholics” sign this in a solemn abjuration and profession of Faith? He is condemned out of his own mouth, because he has his followers make a solemn profession of absolute Faith in his “opinion.” Here is what his followers signed their names to about each of his 46 “articles,” and tell me that he is not a false Christ binding them to Faith in his false opinions: Those who signed this fell outside the Catholic Church by following the false Christ, R.I., who gets people to make an absolutely profession of Faith purely in his word – something he cannot prove from Church teaching – as if it were the word of Christ or the dogma of the Church (which are the same). By the way, R.I. claims that all of his writings are by “the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.” Second, R.I. says that only good can come out of his declarations. It is “prudent,” he says, to declare that all who believe that John Paul II is the Pope are heretics without exception; and it is “prudent,” he says, to declare that all people at all the other independent chapels are heretics. If that were true, why doesn’t R.I. declare that all people from 1965 onward were heretics? Wouldn’t that be the safer course and most prudent? Remember, I proved that Paul VI bound his flock to the heresies of Vatican II in 1965. According to R.I.’s “logic,” it would be most prudent to declare that all from 1965 onward who weren’t sedevacantists and attended any chapel which accepted Paul VI were heretics? But the absurdity of this is obvious, and even R.I. admits that it would be schismatic to condemn the many Catholics who were not aware of the issues at that time, such as Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio. (He has even stated that Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio were saintly). Thus, he refutes his claim that only good can come out of declaring people heretics who are not. No, it is not good, but schismatic. And the same applies today; it would be schismatic to say that all the people at the independent “traditional” chapels are heretics, even if the number of the Catholics is getting smaller because of the increasing circulation and adoption of the heresies of these groups. One cannot presume or declare them all heretics because these independent traditional churches are not notorious meeting houses of heretics in the external forum. They are not notorious meeting houses of heretics in the external forum, since they claim to be Catholic and claim to adhere to the traditional, pre-Vatican II faith and worship. [Note: A distinction should be made between the independent/“traditional” churches and the churches which adhere to the Novus Ordo religion. The churches which adhere to the Novus Ordo religion, and where the heresies of the Novus Ordo are notoriously taught (which includes most of them), are basically Protestant churches; so that, at this point, it is safe to say that almost all the people who go there are heretics and/or in mortal sin just like the people who attend the Protestant churches, the only difference being that the Protestant churches admit that they reject the Catholic Faith in the external forum. But this situation is not the same at the independent/traditional chapels where the Novus Ordo religion has not been imbibed, since they profess to reject the new religion in its basic content; they reject false ecumenism; and they claim to adhere to traditional Catholic Faith and worship, though they are wrong and/or heretical about one or more dogmatic positions touching upon the Faith today.] There can be individuals at the independent/ “traditional” chapels today who were in the same situation that Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio were with regard to Paul VI. To condemn them without proof is no different from condemning Padre Pio and Fr. Feeney as heretics without proof of obstinacy, which R.I. does not do. One must have evidence of pertinacity against the individual, unless they are present in a notoriously heretical church (such as Protestant or Eastern Schismatic), which is not what we are talking about. Notice how with R.I. the end always justifies the means. One of R.I.’s followers named P.M. calumniated us publicly by stating that we copied things from a Protestant website, which was a complete lie. P.M. then admitted his sin by acknowledging to us that he didn’t know if what he said was true; it wasn’t true, of course. When I pointed out to P.M. that he was guilty of a grave sin and a calumny, he went running to his false Christ, R.I., to justify his sin. R.I. told P.M. that he was not guilty of calumny or sin in this regard. P.M.’s false conscience was appeased, and he even wrote to me, commenting on R.I.’s words to him, “You see Peter, I am not guilty of calumny.” As I said, with R.I. the end justifies the means. For instance, in one of his writings he stated that the founder of our Monastery was kicked out of St. Vincent’s Archabbey because he wouldn’t accept the New Mass. But the founder of our Monastery left with permission to start his own Community before the New Mass was promulgated. When that was brought to R.I.’s attention, he said: “So what…” It was no problem that he made it up, because his schismatic end justifies the means. So, when you refute R.I., as we have, he tries to justify his schismatic positions by saying it “was the safer course” to denounce them all. R.I., then denounce everyone from 1965 onward or shut your schismatic mouth – you abominable coward, who makes a pretense of being a defender of the Faith but refuses to debate us because we would expose your easily refuted positions. When you refute R.I., he will also say that “you are straining out gnats.” Yes, all of your heresies and schismatic declarations are just “gnats,” R.I.A Revealing Admission
In his article, R.I. writes: This is a very revealing admission by R.I., which probably was missed by his few enamored followers who are blinded by the cult of personality. Notice that he says: “Much of what I cover in this section also applies to adults; but because this situation is most common among children, I will only be referring to them.” What “situation” is he talking about? What “situation” is most common among children? Remember, R.I. has already taught very clearly that all of these people – young children and adults – become heretics at the age of reason. Thus, there is nothing to distinguish and no “situation” to be examined, right? I quote: That’s quite clear: “Once the infants reach the age or [sic] reason they are culpable because they are willing members of the non-Catholic church. If they [sic] were not true then there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.” He clearly teaches that they all become heretics at the age of reason. Thus, there is no “situation” to be considered, so what is he talking about? The fact is that he is now admitting what we said – and what he condemned as heretical – that there is a process by which children become or may not become heretics after the age of reason, even though they were born to sect members. They don’t all become heretics at the age of reason. And because he is now admitting our position, this is why he says that “this situation” is most common among children. Sorry R.I., but your rash declarations have already told us that there is no “situation” because they all become heretics at the age of reason. But now there is a “situation” whereby children may not become heretics, thus proving that we were correct and that you were schismatic again for declaring that what we said is heretical. You are proving that you have changed your position again.R.I. unwittingly proves our position on what are the “meetinghouses of heretics”
Here is another important point: R.I.’s statements in his article prove our position on what are “meetinghouses of heretics.” In my article, I pointed out that the baptized children of Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t become Protestant heretics and Eastern Schismatics until they obstinately embrace the heresy and schism of their parents. I also pointed out, however, that if they spend any significant period of time in a notoriously heretical non-Catholic church building (such as Protestant or Eastern Schismatic), which professes to be non-Catholic in the external forum, that they must be presumed to be heretics. I wrote: But, I pointed out that the presumption at the SSPX churches, other independent chapels in communion with John Paul II, and sedevacantist chapels where the priests deny the salvation dogma, would not be exactly the same, since these churches profess to be Catholic and profess to adhere to the traditional Catholic Faith in the external forum, not non-Catholic. I wrote: So, here is my point: R.I. implicitly acknowledges the truth of this position when he admits that the Conciliar Church was founded in 1965, but that all the people didn’t become heretics (according to him) until 1997. Think about this: would he admit that people weren’t heretics who were attending Protestant churches or the Eastern Schismatic churches for 32 years? No (notwithstanding what I proved above about the implications of his contradictory position on the “institutionalization” of heresy at Protestant churches). So, he is admitting that there is some difference between the traditional/independent/SSPX churches, etc. and the Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches, is he not? Yes. What is that difference? The difference is that the independent chapels (SSPX, etc.) profess to be Catholic in the external forum, not non-Catholic. This, in turn, proves that his attempt to equate attendance at an SSPX or a Byzantine liturgy with attendance at an Eastern Schismatic church is false. Whether he realizes it or not, by such an admission he is proving our claim that there is a definite distinction between meeting houses of heretics (Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches) and churches which profess to be Catholic in the external forum but are heretical (such as SSPX, CMRI, etc.).R.I. quotes Orestes Brownson and Fr. Muller without knowing that they teach what he condemns
R.I. quotes Fr. Muller and Orestes Brownson as if they agree with him on when people become heretics. In his blind pride and ignorance he is oblivious to the fact that they teach many times the very thing he condemns as heretical. The only way that baptized infants when reaching the age of reason can cease to be Catholic is through heresy, schism or apostasy. But Fr. Muller is saying that many of these people among the Protestants (!) are not guilty of heresy. Yeah, I’m sure he would agree with R.I. that all above reason (without exception) at the SSPX, CMRI, etc. are guilty of heresy! Yeah, sure he would. Thus, Fr. Muller is teaching (whether he would admit it or not) that certain of these people attending Protestant church buildings are still Catholics. Now, I would not have said what Fr. Muller says above. I articulated my position on when these people become heretics in detail in the previous article. All who are Protestants (i.e., all who reject an article of Catholic Faith) are heretics. In my article against R.I., I discussed when people become Protestant heretics. But my point here is simply that R.I. calls Fr. Muller a defender of the salvation dogma, despite the fact that he teaches exactly what R.I. condemns, while R.I. says we are heretical. R.I. is a blind fool. R.I. also calls Orestes Brownson a defender of the dogma. Here is what Orestes Brownson says, as quoted by Fr. Michael Muller in The Catholic Dogma, p. 61: Orestes Brownson, as quoted in The Catholic Dogma by Fr. Muller, p. 61: “There are, we like to believe, among Protestants, many individuals who are far superior to their Protestantism…It is not these, as men, as individuals, that we denounce, for many of them we honor and esteem, but the Protestantism with which they are associated.” If he is saying that he esteems Protestants, then his statement is heretical. But R.I. calls this man a defender of the salvation dogma.Orestes Brownson and Fr. Muller devastate R.I.’s whole theology
Fr. Muller is teaching exactly what R.I. called heresy. He is teaching, via Orestes Brownson, that persons in heretical buildings (such as the SSPX) above reason may not be heretics. I hasten to point out that if it is a notoriously heretical building, such as a Protestant church, all who spend significant time there must be presumed to be heretics. But it is the consistent teaching that not all persons in these buildings definitely become heretics at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace the heresy – exactly what we said and what R.I. condemned. So, let me summarize: Fr. Muller and Brownson prove exactly what I said, and what R.I. called heretical; they prove that what I said is the consistent teaching of countless authorities; yet R.I. says that they are great and that we are heretical. Does one really need to say more?More Contradictions Spilling from the Mouth of R.I.
So, R.I., would that be after the heresies have been “institutionalized” in all the churches or before? Would that apply to the Protestants churches as well as the “publicly non-Catholic Conciliar churches”? How does that coincide with your declaration that all exceptions have ceased for ignorance, and your declaration that they all become heretics at the age of reason? How does this “six-month grace period” harmonize with your 32 year allowance from 1965 to 1997? His whole position is just one big heap of nonsense with so many contradictions that it is a joke. I really considered stopping here, since nothing more really needs to be written to refute R.I.’s schismatic position. But for those who may be concerned, I have continued with a detailed response to some other points relevant to R.I.’s new article.Other Dishonest Tactics of R.I.
R.I. veils his illogical arguments, non-sequiturs, and subtle evasions by so much circular reasoning that his readers, because they have itching ears for false teachers, most probably won’t see through all of it and identify that he is not proving anything, but rather is contradicting himself. If you read R.I., you must be aware of this, since he consistently uses all kinds of evasions, straw men, illogical arguments, emotional distractions, circular reasoning, etc. to influence his reader. I will soon be posting a summary of his heresies and dishonest tactics. For instance…R.I. consistently lies about his opponent by attributing to him positions he doesn’t hold
A straw man is a position that is attributed to someone that he doesn’t hold. It is used by heretics, false prophets and illogical persons to deceive people, so that when they smash the straw man (the position that the person doesn’t hold) it appears to the unwary as if they are smashing the person’s argument, when they aren’t. R.I. uses the devilish straw man again and again. In one article about us, he used it so many times that it’s truly incredible, but it reveals the snake’s ugly head. Watch this, it’s truly incredible: Who’s speaking this time? The devil, or R.I.? These are actually his words from only a few pages! We see him changing the position he attributes to us an incredible 5 times in only a few pages! This is totally evil, and this is how the devil, heretics and false prophets work to deceive and ensnare. They can condemn you again and again for what you don’t even hold, while the dumbed-down reader says, “oh, good point.” Here’s another example: We’ve never said anything of the sort. R.I. is just lying again, by attributing to us a position we have never enunciated. (On the contrary, we point out that all who actually join the Conciliar Church by obstinately accepting its heresies or its Antipopes are non-Catholics.) But in misrepresenting our position, he can condemn us for something we never even said, and the dumbed-down reader says again: “Oh, good point.” Since he has no facts, he must focus on what people can “picture.” He must drum up sentimental imagery, which he has learned from experience becomes all the more effective when he lies about what people hold. Can you picture SS. John and James going to confession to a Greek Schismatic in danger of death? Can you imagine these two saints reciting the act of contrition in the presence of the same schismatic, while the schismatic waits to bless them and absolve them of their sins? No, you can’t; but this is irrelevant, because the Church says that they can in danger of death. So please, stop playing on people’s emotions – and just give people the facts. Stop attributing to other people things that they never said, so that you can condemn them for what they don’t believe. It’s not about what we can picture, R.I.. It’s about what the Church teaches. By the way, R.I. is again using a straw man against J.L. too, because these churches are not non-Catholic in the external forum, but profess to be Catholic in the external forum, as discussed above.More Examples of Dishonest Tactics
R.I. consistently brings up the fact that we knew a Biblical Scholar who was a heretic against the salvation dogma. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing. Do we condone this man’s heresy? No, of course not. We condemn it as much as anyone. I can just see his dumbed-down, heretical followers of R.I. saying, “oh, they knew someone who was a salvation heretic… you must be right and they are wrong…” But R.I. will go back again and again to such irrelevant, emotional nonsense to distract his readers. Here is more of R.I.’s circular nonsense, in discussing the specific issue of when the baptized children of sect members become heretics: But what does it mean to “join a heretical sect”? That is precisely the specific issue at stake here! It must be proven with specificity. Do the children of SSPX heretics who attend Mass with them “join a heretical sect” by going to Mass with their parents? R.I. doesn’t like to address these things with any specificity; and, the few times he does, he falls all over himself in contradictions (as we have proven already). So most of the time he just pleases the itching ears of his heretical followers by arguing in a circle: “they sin [and become heretics] as soon as they join a heretical sect.” Thanks for telling us, R.I. Now I can understand as well that people “sin and become schismatics as soon as they join a schismatic sect.” Gee, what an enlightening observation! How instructive you are on this issue of when and how and what it takes for the baptized children of heretics to join the heretical or schismatic sect of their parents and cease to be Catholic! Here is another example of the evil, circular arguments of R.I. These are clearly inspired by the devil, to confound his heretical readers, stymie their thought, and veil his indefensible positions: Again, he doesn’t tell us what it takes for the baptized infant (who is Catholic) to leave the Catholic Church (when reaching reason) and join the heretical sect. Then, notice that he says that this baptized child (above reason) sins for not joining the Catholic Church. But this person was already joined to the Catholic Church and given the Catholic Faith by his baptism as an infant! So, the question is: what does it take for him to separate himself from the Church he already belongs to and leave it; the answer is an obstinate denial of the Faith or submission to the Roman Pontiff, as is clearly taught by Clement VI above. I specifically explained what would constitute an obstinate denial of the Faith or schism in the article against him (“Our Challenge to Debate R.I.”). But the purpose of R.I.’s vague and circular generalizations is to be able to imply a position that seems correct in the context in which he is speaking, and then retract that same position and amend it (since it was only implied but not specified) when it no longer holds. Let me prove the point. As any reasonable person will agree, R.I.’s words above clearly imply (without stating it specifically) that all baptized children above reason attending an Eastern Schismatic church building or a heretical church building have sinned – and have ceased to be Catholics – for “joining a heretical sect” and “failing to enter the Catholic Church.” Since almost no Protestants or Eastern Schismatics require their followers to sign a statement of belief, his words cannot refer to signing a heretical statement. He is clearly indicating that all above reason who are present in a heretical church building have joined a heretical sect and are heretics. This is further proven by the fact that he says that we [the Dimond Brothers] are heretics for holding the opposite: that not all who are present in a heretical church building are heretics if they have not yet embraced the heresy. Thus, his position is clearly that all above reason who attend a non-Catholic church building with their parents have joined a heretical sect and are heretics; but it is not stated specifically, so that he can change it when needed, such as in the case of St. Josaphat.St. Josaphat
In my article, I proved that St. Josaphat was a Catholic, even though he attended the Eastern Schismatic church building with his parents. St. Josaphat was a Catholic because he had not yet obstinately embraced the Eastern Schism. Notice that the Pope does not say that St. Josaphat condemned his parents as heretics, but that he “tended towards communion with the… Catholic Church.” This simply means that St. Josaphat was inclined to the truth from the beginning, but that he may have been unaware of the issue of the Eastern Schism [and their rejection of the Papacy] in good faith. Thus, St. Josaphat is an example of a Catholic young person who was attending an Eastern Schismatic church building with his parents but was not a heretic. This, of course, proves that today it is possible for the children of the SSPX and other heretics to be Catholics since they also don’t understand the issue. It totally refutes #’s 31 and 32 of R.I.’s schismatical abjuration. Here is R.I.’s response to my evidence from St. Josaphat: R.I. writes that the children of schismatics “must do what St. Josaphat did if they want to become Catholic.” First of all, these baptized persons were already made Catholics by their baptism. Secondly, what did St. Josaphat do? St. Josaphat attended the schismatic church building [the Eastern Slavic Liturgy] with his parents! St. Josaphat rejected the Eastern Schism when he became cognizant of it, and converted many eastern Schismatics; but he was still a Catholic those years that he attended the Eastern Schismatic building because he had not embraced the Eastern Schism, was baptized and held the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith. Thus, R.I. is changing his position by admitting that people [such as St. Josaphat] can be attending a non-Catholic church building with their parents and still be Catholic! With this admission, he refutes his abjuration, and he shows that he agrees with us, and the very thing for which he said we were heretics, that not all the baptized children of non-Catholics become non-Catholics immediately at the age of reason. What an outrage from a dishonest, pitifully blinded and convoluted schismatic!The Council of Elvira
In my article, I also brought forward evidence from the Council of Elvira which refuted R.I.’s abjuration. This means that the children above reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the Church. This is exactly what I said, and what R.I. called heretical. Since this statement from the Council of Elvira proves that our position is an acceptable position in the early Church – and even the mind of the early Church – it utterly refutes R.I.’s entire schismatic theology. So, how did he attempt to respond? His response is a desperately pathetic attempt to distort the truth. This is outrageous. R.I. is grabbing at anything he can; this is a desperate attempt to escape this evidence which destroys his abjuration. The fact that the Council of Elvira said that they may be “received” without delay does not mean that it considered them to be non-Catholics. These children most certainly were Catholics because a baptized child must sin by heresy, schism or apostasy to separate from the Church. But the Council of Elvira clearly teaches that they had not sinned of their own fault. Thus, the children could not have ceased to be Catholics. R.I. is a liar, plain and simple, who tries to mislead his readers and defend the indefensible (his schismatical abjuration), by distorting words in a manner clearly contrary the teaching of the Council of Elvira. R.I. even attempts to add credibility to his distortion by quoting something from the Council of Carthage [an unrelated passage], which uses the words “received into the Catholic Church,” as if when the word received is used it always necessitates the meaning “received into the Catholic Church.” My, what lengths these heretics will go to in order to deceive! But this is refuted by pointing out that the Council of Elvira, like the Council of Carthage, is a regional Council, not a dogmatic one. Not every expression of the Council of Elvira or the Council of Carthage is infallible or absolutely precise, but the meaning of their teaching reflects the mind of the early Church. Let me give you an example: St. Alphonsus says that all who die outside the Church will be condemned, except infants who die after baptism. St. Alphonsus’ meaning is obvious, but his words are imprecise and actually heretical; for he is saying that infants can be saved outside the Church, which is heretical. What he means is that baptized infants are not outside the Church, but inside the Church. But his words are not precise, because they are not guaranteed to be infallible, like a dogmatic definition is. This example proves my point above, namely, that even if the Council of Elvira [a non-dogmatic council] had stated, “If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH without delay,” [which it didn’t] it still wouldn’t prove that these infants are not Catholics, because it is clearly teaching that they had not sinned [thus no heresy or schism], and its declaration that they may be received into the Catholic Church would not be guaranteed to be absolutely precise in its articulation, just like St. Alphonsus’ statement is not absolutely precise. Thus, R.I.’s escape attempt is refuted. The fact is that the Council of Elvira clearly contradicts the declaration of his abjuration; it contradicts his whole understanding of when people become heretics; it contradicts his repeated statements that all the baptized children of sect members become sect members at the age of reason. The Council of Elvira clearly teaches that these young children had not sinned of their own fault, and without such sin they could not have ceased to be Catholics.St. Francis De Sales
In my article, I also quoted St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), whose teaching refutes R.I.’s abjuration. Now, as I said above, I would not have articulated this the same way that St. Francis De Sales did. I would never say that a person cannot defend his “choice of religion.” St. Francis should have been more precise with his words by stating that those baptized persons among the Calvinists who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith), but who have not obstinately embraced the Calvinists’ heresies because they do not yet know or understand the distinction between them and Catholic teaching, are not necessarily heretics. But St. Francis De Sales’ meaning is undeniable. His meaning is exactly what I said, and exactly what R.I. called heretical. He is saying that some of the children of the Calvinists (above reason) may be excusable from heresy, even if the number is almost zero – since when any of them know of the distinctions involved and reject the Catholic teaching they become Protestant heretics and cease to be Catholics. But this does not happen to all the baptized children of the Calvinists at the age of reason, contrary to what R.I. said and R.I.’s false abjuration professes. So, R.I. would have to condemn St. Francis De Sales as a heretic, just as he condemned me as a heretic, and just as he condemns every single person (above reason) at every traditional chapel as a heretic. But how did R.I. respond to this? Like the dishonest heretic he is, R.I. COMPLETELY IGNORED THE STATEMENT FROM ST. FRANCIS DE SALES! R.I. made no attempt to even address this quote from St. Francis De Sales because it clearly refutes his schismatical abjuration. R.I. probably realized that even his attempts to confuse his readers wouldn’t work in this case since St. Francis’s meaning is too clear, so he chose to hide this evidence from his readers.Regarding abjuration for 14 year olds
It is a fact that R.I. has, in the past, instructed his followers to have their children below 14 sign abjurations. However, in my article I quoted for him the fact that the Church does not require people under 14 to make abjurations. So, in his article, he changed his position after it was clearly refuted by the fact that I brought forward: Then why have you been requiring it for your “converts” under 14? With this, R.I. is admitting that abjuration is an ecclesiastical law and is not absolutely necessary for converts from heresy to enter the Church. (Note: I am not saying that a specific abjuration form today regarding the contemporary heresies is not a good idea, if the content is sound. I am illustrating a point.) His admission that abjuration is not absolutely necessary in every case for converts from heresy to enter the Church shows that, in necessity, converts could merely confess their sin of heresy and enter the Church. This, in turn, shows that not all who fail to require specific abjuration forms – because they feel that abjuration is regulated by the Ordinary (of which there are presently none) – are heretics, contrary to the repeated declarations of R.I. These people may be recognizing that abjuration is an ecclesiastical law that doesn’t bind in necessity, infeasibility or impossibility. Hence, with his admission that abjuration is not required for all converts from heresy in all cases, R.I. refutes his own position whereby he condemns all priests and even laypeople as heretics who have not composed their own specific abjuration forms. They can justify themselves by pointing out that they don’t feel that is their responsibility, and that it is not absolutely necessary for all converts from heresy in all situations, as R.I. admits. Thus, R.I.’s “make it up as you go along” schismatic theology – whereby he constantly condemns people as heretics when he cannot prove they are – refutes itself again.Concluding Summary
I refuted R.I.’s claim that the heresies were institutionalized in 1997. I proved that they were institutionalized (according to his own definition) in 1965. I proved that R.I. embraces the very position that he condemns by admitting that people were attending churches of a non-Catholic sect for 32 years before becoming heretics. Thus, I proved that R.I. denies the salvation dogma according to his own criteria. I proved that R.I. admits (at times) that the baptized children of sect members become heretics when they obstinately embrace the heresy (what we teach), while at other times he rejects that idea as heretical and says they all become heretics at the age of reason. I also proved that he sometimes teaches that they become heretics and culpable after six months, which totally contradicts all of his other assertions. I proved that R.I. unwittingly proves our position on what are the meetinghouses of heretics, by admitting a distinction between Protestant churches and the churches which profess to be Catholic in the external forum. I proved that Fr. Muller and Orestes Brownson teach what R.I. condemns. I showed that St. Josaphat, the Council of Elvira and St. Francis De Sales refute R.I and his schismatical abjuration. I proved that R.I. is an evil schismatic whose teaching and abjuration are a mass of contradictions and illogical nonsense. I will soon be posting a summary list of R.I.’s schismatic declarations and illogical positions.Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^