The Schismatic R.I. hurls a new accusation against us and then refuses to defend his position in a debate; his position and abjuration are crushed by various teachings of the Church (PART 1)

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]

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. PART 1: -Introduction- How the New Controversy Materialized My first e-mail to R.I. challenging him to a debate My second e-mail to R.I. challenging him to a debate and answering his first question My third e-mail to R.I. challenging him to a debate and asking for a response to my question My public letter to R.I. which reveals the teaching of the Council of Elvira, St. Francis De Sales, Pope Pius XI and more which crushes his position on when people become heretics and blows his schismatical abjuration away Other brief points regarding the Schismatic R.I. This Teaching on When People Become Heretics makes perfect sense  

-Introduction-

Some of our readers are familiar with R.I.  Our article “Refuting R.I.” dealt with his false teachings.  Please read that article if you are not familiar with where we differ from him.  In that article I exposed his basic views: that all people who attend any traditional Mass in the country are heretics – clearly false; that all non-sedevacantists without exception, even those unfamiliar with the issues involved, are heretics – clearly false; that heretics don’t have to be obstinate, etc. – clearly false, as demonstrated in the aforementioned article. But a new article was necessary because R.I. has recently hurled a new accusation our way.  R.I. has accused us of denying the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation!  Since R.I.’s accusation is completely false – and, quite frankly, one of the biggest insults that has ever been hurled our way, considering the time, effort and devotion we have given to this dogma – a public response was necessary. Allow me to give a little background on the issue involved which prompted his false accusation.  This issue concerns what it takes to become a heretic.  It is very important for all familiar with R.I. to understand this issue, because it lies at the heart of all of his schismatic views.  And once it is shown that his view of when people become heretics is completely wrong, as I will prove here, his whole schismatical program crumbles.

HOW THE NEW CONTROVERSY MATERIALIZED

To illustrate the difference between our views of what it takes to become a heretic, let’s look at the case of two members of the SSPX.  First, I should note again that R.I. holds that all people who attend the SSPX are heretics, whereas we correctly say that only those who obstinately agree with them once they become familiar with the issue are heretics.  Okay, let’s say there are two members of the Society of St. Pius X who obstinately agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved in false religions, that John Paul II is the Pope (after seeing the evidence against him) and who believe that they are free to reject the “Canonizations” of the man they deem to be the Pope.  Unfortunately, these two SSPX members are, in fact, heretics for obstinately holding such positions.  But what about their baptized children?  All infants who are baptized are Catholics.  So do the baptized children of these SSPX heretics become heretics when they reach the age of reason?  The answer is no, because in order to be a heretic one must obstinately reject a Catholic teaching.  If one is not aware of the Catholic teaching or is not familiar with the issue involved, he is not necessarily a heretic.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will.  Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.” St. Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” (quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.) Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

The children of these SSPX heretics don’t become heretics at the age of reason; they become heretics at the point when they hear about and understand the issue at stake and then obstinately reject the Catholic position.  Thus, it would be totally false and schismatical to assert that all the children above reason at the SSPX chapels are heretics.  But this is exactly what R.I. asserts in his self-composed abjuration.

R. I.’s Abjuration, #31: “I reject and condemn as apostates and heretics, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, any patriarch, primate, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, priest or layman associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II, whose heresies have been manifest to all, along with the papal deposition teachings that are available to anyone who seeks the truth. I acknowledge all those in these latter days of the Great Apostasy with the use of reason, who are associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II as non-Catholics who have been latae sententiae excommunicated, and are outside the Catholic Church with no exceptions or excuses for ignorance.” R. I.’s Abjuration, #32. “I reject and condemn any sect or person that teach that “Catholics” can attend the Masses of manifest/notorious heretics, or Masses of those who are in communion with manifest/notorious heretics. Therefore, I reject, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, all priests who pray in communion (una cum) with Antipope John Paul II in the Te Igitur prayer of the Canon of the Mass. I reject and condemn all the laymen who attend these churches and chapels, and acknowledge them as apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.”

These assertions are clearly false, but R.I. attempts to defend them by saying that if the children of SSPX heretics are Catholics then so are the children of Protestants.  AND THIS IS HOW THE NEW CONTROVERSY MATERIALIZED.  This led to one of his followers asking me when the baptized children of Protestants become heretics like their parents.  I responded by saying:

“Sir, I will answer your question. A heretic, by definition, is one who obstinately or stubbornly with pertinacity rejects an article of divine and Catholic Faith. The children of Protestant families do not become Protestants (i.e., heretics) until they reach an age where they comprehend the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and then obstinately reject the Catholic position.”

There are a few points regarding this answer that will be expanded upon later in this article, but it is true as it stands.  The children of Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t become Protestant heretics and Eastern Schismatics at the age of reason (this will be proven more thoroughly as we proceed).  Like the children of the SSPX, the baptized children of Protestants and Eastern Schismatics (who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation) don’t become heretics or schismatics until they comprehend the issue involved and then obstinately reject the Catholic position or the authority of the Catholic Church.  But upon hearing about my response to the question, R.I.’s friend misrepresented what I said.  He wrote back:

R.I.’s friend: “You state above that a Protestant does not become a heretic until he reaches the age of reason and then obstinately rejects the Catholic position.”

Notice that this is not what I said.

I said: “The children of Protestant families do not become Protestants (i.e., heretics) until they reach an age where they comprehend the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and then obstinately reject the Catholic position.” R.I.’s friend said I said: “You state above that a Protestant does not become a heretic until he reaches the age of reason and then obstinately rejects the Catholic position.”

R.I.’s heretical follower misrepresented what I said.  And this is how Satan works to deceive.  So after hearing of my answer to his friend’s question, R.I. accused my position of being heretical, since he holds that all the baptized children of heretics become heretics at the age of reason, not when they obstinately reject a Catholic dogma.  This is how he “justifies” condemning as heretics all the children above reason at the SSPX, CMRI, etc. R.I., Accusing us of denying Outside the Church There is No Salvation: “Peter Dimond took his erroneous theology to its heretical conclusion by believing that all Protestants [sic] who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually Catholics by default, because, according to Peter, they can never become heretics unless Catholic dogmas are first presented to them, until they first know the Catholic position.  He said, “The children of Protestant families do not become Protestants (i.e., heretics) until they reach an age where they comprehend the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and then obstinately reject the Catholic position.” He pretends his conditions only apply to children, but, if he is to be consistent, his erroneous theology logically applies to all Protestants with the use of reason no matter what age they are. Therefore, according to Peter, it is not a matter of age but of learning the Catholic position and then denying it. Peter’s heresy is the root of the denial of the Salvation Dogma. It was very first one the Salvation heretics introduced to laymen in the 19th century.” R.I. stated that my position was heretical and a denial of the salvation dogma.  I responded with the following e-mail and challenged him to a debate on the topic.

---

MY FIRST E-MAIL TO R.I. CHALLENGING HIM TO A DEBATE (12/23/04)

Bro. Peter Dimond to R.I. (12/23/04):

You have calumniated me on your website by stating that I deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  I do not deny this dogma, but hold that all, without exception, who die as Jews, pagans, heretics and schismatics go to hell, as defined by Eugene IV. So, I challenge you to a debate on this matter via e-mail. In the debate I will prove that your abjuration is schismatical and heretical; that you have denied your own abjuration; that you believe that people who are in non-Catholic churches can be saved; and that I don’t deny the salvation dogma. You can try to prove that I deny the salvation dogma and that your abjuration is not heretical or schismatical.  Do you accept the challenge?  If so, I will begin the debate with a question:  please tell us at exactly what point the baptized children of heretics or schismatics become heretics, and where the Church has taught what you say?  You can answer and I will respond. If you refuse to accept this challenge, then we will post on our website that you were too cowardly to defend your position in this regard and your false accusation against me. -Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

---

On 12/28/04 R.I. responded to my e-mail but did not accept the challenge to debate.  He said that he would only respond to my question as to when the baptized children of heretics become heretics after I answered 14 of his questions, most of which had nothing to do with the topic.  After listing his 14 questions, R.I. stated:

“Lastly, I have an answer as to when children of Protestants become non-Catholic heretics based upon [sic] the Church teaches, which I will not answer until you answer properly all the above questions.”

So, R.I. did not accept the challenge to debate us on this topic of when the baptized children of heretics become heretics.  He likes to accuse others of heresy whom he feels that he can refute, but lacks the backbone to meet us in a debate and substantiate and defend his accusations.  He is obviously scared to debate us, which is why he attempted to divert by asking us 14 different questions.  So, I wrote R.I. another e-mail in which I responded to his first question, and then asked him my own. (The reader will notice that my language in the following e-mail is deliberately meant to challenge R.I.  I repeatedly ask him to state his position clearly “like a man,” in the hope that this will cause him to actually respond and debate me; for I know that if he accepts the challenge of the debate his false position will be exposed by the facts, and that it will be very beneficial to those who have signed his schismatical abjuration.  But if he refused to debate, some of his followers who were reading the exchange wouldn’t see his position refuted.  So, I wanted to challenge him to come out and state his position.  Also, those who are familiar with R.I. will understand that he specializes in extravagant denunciations and verbal tirades.  Thus, when you communicate with him the tone is necessarily harsh.)

---

MY SECOND E-MAIL TO R.I. CHALLENGING HIM TO A DEBATE AND ANSWERING HIS FIRST QUESTION (12/23/04)

Bro. Peter Dimond to R.I.  (12/29/04):

I see, you ask me 14 questions which I  must answer before you will even answer one.  I guess that is how bad willed heretics work.  You were the one to launch the accusation of heresy against me on the salvation dogma, so you are the one on whom the burden of proof in this regard falls.  But you refuse even to state your position clearly (as to when these people become heretics) so as to contrast it with mine.  I guess that is how bad willed heretics work. You didn’t prove anything in your article because you didn’t even give your position.  You just say that what I said is heretical, without proving anything, and people buy it; not many, though, thankfully.  Here is what I will do: I will answer your first question directly and then I will ask one question for you to answer.  Then you can answer it and pose another one and vice versa.  I will now answer your first question and state my position clearlylike a man on when the baptized children of heretics (Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, etc.) become heretics, after a few preliminary remarks (which must be made).  And then I will ask you a question which you must answer directly and state your position clearlylike a man, not like an ambiguous heretic as you did in your article. In your article, after accusing me of heresy and not showing anyone from Catholic teaching where I’m wrong (which is a mortal sin), here is what you said:

R.I.: “Lastly, the only valid question regarding children born into non-Catholic families is when they acquire the use of reason sufficient to seek and know the truth and to detect and reject basic falsehoods. This is based upon I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient) and not age. Although an age is assigned to the average case, it is based upon I.Q. Therefore this age varies for particular children. This does not just apply to children, for even adults who are mentally retarded may not have the use of reason. I will go into detail regarding this in the future. God willing.”

What the heck does this mean?  Does anyone on earth know what this means?  Do any of your followers know what this means?  Do your words mean that all the baptized children of heretics (Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, etc.) become heretics at the age of reason or not?  If so, just state it clearly like a man.  You even admit that you didn’t state your position because you said “I will go into detail regarding this in the future”!  Sorry R.I., you accused me of heresy; you are obligated to give your detailed position at the time of your accusation of heresy, so as to prove where I am wrong.  But you didn’t.  You seem to be saying that they become heretics when they reach the age of reason.  But like a serpent, you attempt to cover yourself by saying when they “acquire the use of reason sufficient to seek and know the truth and to detect and reject basic falsehoods.”  The dishonest addition you add – “to detect and reject basic falsehoods” – seems to imply that they have to know that what they are believing is a falsehood!  Your question allows you to sort of state your position, but not really. So, when you answer my question, be a man and state your position clearly, not like an ambiguous heretic.  Followers of R.I.: watch to see if R.I. ever states his position clearly, namely: that these baptized children of Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, etc. become heretics at the age of reason or whatever it is. I must make another preliminary clarification. There is, in truth, no such thing as a Protestant who has never heard of Catholic dogmas.  A Protestant, by definition, is one who protests against Catholic dogmas, and all who protest against Catholic dogmas are heretics.  Further, all who have heard of the Trinity and the Incarnation have heard of Catholic dogmas, since these are the most central and most necessary Catholic dogmas.  The people I’m referring to are not Protestants, but Catholics [Christians] who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation.  So don’t say that I’m saying that Protestants are not heretics because that’s not what I have said.  And this is the reason that I didn’t proceed with Mr. X [R.I.’s friend], because he dishonestly misrepresented what I said. Notice the dishonest twist of what I said that was posted on your website:

I stated: “The children of Protestant families do not become Protestants (i.e., heretics) until they reach an age where they comprehend the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and then obstinately reject the Catholic position.”

Your follower Mr. X said I said: … “You state above that a Protestant does not become a heretic until he reaches the age of reason and then obstinately rejects the Catholic position.”

Notice how your heretical follower totally misrepresented what I said.  This is how Satan works to deceive.  Now to your first question: YOUR FIRST QUESTION: 1) Can a self-professed Protestant—assuming he is validly baptized—who never heard of Catholic dogmas ever be a heretic? If so, then explain how? If not, then you would have to admit that all self-professed Protestants who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually Catholics, inside the Church, and thus can be saved. Do you agree with this last statement? MY ANSWER: All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc.  This is de fide.  These baptized Catholics, when they reach the age of reason in a Protestant building, if they hold the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the two essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith) hold the absolutely essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity.. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If they don’t know about any other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) then they are not heretics but Catholics [Christians], unless they hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural law or deny something that they know to be clearly taught in Scripture.  For instance, if the baptized person described above claims to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but holds that all religions are more or less good, then he is a heretic and does not have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such a position is condemned by the Church) because his belief is incompatible with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which belief he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest components.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “…that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy...  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the simplest components of the Catholic Faith) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas holds that man does not have free will (which some Protestants teach).  This person would also become a heretic even before he has seen his position condemned by the Church and before he has heard of other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) because he is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, that man has a free will.  Thus, he is denying a truth all know about man from the natural law and he is a heretic. Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation (the Catholic Faith in its simplest components) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas refuses to believe that God is a rewarder and a punisher.  This person is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions (see Heb. 11:6). The baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building. So, I have answered your question very clearly and stated my position very clearly.

Detailed Summary of my Answer to prove that I answered your question with tremendous specificity

Allow me to review your question again and show you, point by point, that I have answered it very clearly and specifically. YOUR FIRST QUESTION: 1) Can a self-professed Protestant—assuming he is validly baptized—who never heard of Catholic dogmas ever be a heretic? The answer is YES, with the clarification that you are calling these persons Protestants but I am not.

If so, then explain how?

I gave multiple examples above; e.g., if they hold a position incompatible with Faith in the Trinity, etc.

If not, then you would have to admit that all self-professed Protestants who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually Catholics, inside the Church, and thus can be saved. Do you agree with this last statement?

Again, the baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building. I have answered your question very clearly.  Now you must answer mine. MY FIRST QUESTION: Tell us EXACTLY WHEN THE BAPTIZED CHILDREN OF PROTESTANTS, EASTERN SCHISMATICS, ETC. BECOME HERETICS?  Is it at the age of reason?  Wouldn’t it have to be (according to you), since you state in #31 of your abjuration that all non-sedevacantists are heretics at the age of reason?  If all non-sedevacantists are heretics at the age of reason, surely (according to you) all the children of Protestants become heretics at the age of reason, right?  In this regard, are all the people (above reason) who attend Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches heretics?  And does it make me a heretic (according to you) to hold that certain of these people above reason who attend Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches are actually Catholics?  All these mini-questions pertain to the same question, to make sure that you don’t evade it.  State your position like a man. -Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. P.S. And I have challenged you to debate on this topic of when people become heretics.  So don’t switch topics by asking questions on the Mass issue to avoid this issue that you cannot defend.

---

The reader can see that I answered his question in detail, and then posed my own.  But I received no response from R.I!  I received no response to my question or my challenge to debate him.  He backed down like a coward, and refused even to answer my simple question.  He refused to answer my simple question after I went out of my way to answer his question first, in addition to the fact that he was the one to launch the accusation of heresy against me. So, I waited a few days for the schismatic coward R.I. to respond, and since no response was forthcoming, I wrote him again:

---

MY THIRD E-MAIL TO R.I. CHALLENGING HIM TO DEBATE AND ASKING FOR A RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION

Bro. Peter Dimond to R.I.  (12/31/04)

On your website you have accused me of being a heretic regarding my position on when the baptized children of heretics become heretics.  In accusing me of heresy you did not even give your position to contrast it with mine!  Since you performed this dastardly act (accusing someone of heresy without even giving your own position on the topic to prove him wrong!) I have challenged you to a debate on the topic.  You have refused to debate the topic, and have evaded by demanding that I answer 14 different questions for you.  This clearly shows that you are scared to debate the issue, and that you are running by such evasive tactics and unreasonable demands.  I reasonably agreed to answer your first question and I thoroughly answered it for you before you even answered mine, showing my good will by answering first. So, you have until the end of Monday to answer my question.  If you do not respond by the end of Monday then we will post on our website that you were afraid to debate us on when the baptized children of heretics become heretics.  It should take you little time to answer the question I asked; after all, you accused me of heresy on the topic.  If you accused me of heresy on the topic then you certainly know what your position is and how it differs from mine.  If you refuse to answer the question then you are an abominable coward, a complete fraud and an unspeakable hypocrite who constantly condemns others for not professing the Faith when you cannot even answer a simple question on a topic on which you accused your fellow man of heresy without even giving your position. MY QUESTION: Tell us EXACTLY WHEN THE BAPTIZED CHILDREN OF HERETICS BECOME HERETICS? -Bro. Peter Dimond

---

I never received an answer to my question or my challenge to debate to R.I.  He backed down because he is scared to defend his position against us in a debate.  And we must remember that R.I. is constantly condemning others for failing to profess the Faith, for supposed sins of omission and for not condemning heresy, yet this abominable hypocrite runs away when we challenge him to debate this issue and answer one simple question!  R.I. is a complete fraud.

MY PUBLIC LETTER TO R.I. WHICH BRINGS FORTH THE TEACHING OF THE COUNCIL OF ELVIRA, ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, POPE PIUS XI AND MORE WHICH CRUSHES HIS POSITION ON WHEN PEOPLE BECOME HERETICS AND BLOWS HIS SCHISMATICAL ABJURATION AWAY

Bro. Peter Dimond to R.I.  (Public Letter) 1/8/05

You are too cowardly to debate us, because you sensed that you would be refuted.  You sensed correctly; you would be utterly refuted in a debate.  I will now show that your position is blown away by Catholic teaching.  Even though you didn’t state it unambiguously in your recent article about us, it is clear that you hold that the baptized children of heretics become heretics and non-Catholics when they reach the age of reason.  This is what you hold, which is why you condemn all the children of the SSPX, etc. as heretics at the age of reason.  In your first article regarding us you state clearly:

R.I., Article on us: “A Protestant or Schismatic church is still a Protestant and Schismatic church even though the baptized infants who attend it are Catholic. 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.”

This is stated clearly.  Here is another statement you made in the same article regarding us:

R.I.: “So, please, no excuses for the 10-year-old heretics and/or schismatics in these chapels. If you excuse them you must then excuse 10-year-old Protestants and Greek and Russian Schismatics. The hard facts are that young children take the faith of their parents or guardians.”

This, of course, is in line with your abjuration, where you condemn all the children of the SSPX, etc. who have reached the age of reason.

R. I.’s Abjuration, #31: “…I acknowledge all those in these latter days of the Great Apostasy with the use of reason, who are associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II as non-Catholics who have been latae sententiae excommunicated, and are outside the Catholic Church with no exceptions or excuses for ignorance.”

Thus, your position is clear from these statements: your position is that the baptized children of heretics become heretics at the age of reason. As you said, “Once the infants reach the age or [sic] reason they are culpable because they are willing members of the non-Catholic church.”  I did not agree with this, and you stated that my position is a denial of the salvation dogma and makes me a heretic. My position is that these baptized persons are not heretics at the age of reason, but when they comprehend the distinction between the Catholic position and the heresy and then reject the Catholic position or if they hold some other position incompatible with Faith in God, the Trinity, the natural law or something they know to be clearly taught in Scripture.  (By the way, even in this latter case the person is still rejecting a truth they know to be taught by God.) Thus, not all the children of Protestant heretics become Protestant heretics at the age of reason.  You hold that my position makes me a heretic. R.I.: “Peter Dimond took his erroneous theology to its heretical conclusion by believing that all Protestants [sic] who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually Catholics by default, because, according to Peter, they can never become heretics unless Catholic dogmas are first presented to them, until they first know the Catholic position.  He said, “The children of Protestant families do not become Protestants (i.e., heretics) until they reach an age where they comprehend the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and then obstinately reject the Catholic position.” He pretends his conditions only apply to children, but, if he is to be consistent, his erroneous theology logically applies to all Protestants with the use of reason no matter what age they are. Therefore, according to Peter, it is not a matter of age but of learning the Catholic position and then denying it. Peter’s heresy is the root of the denial of the Salvation Dogma. It was very first one the Salvation heretics introduced to laymen in the 19th century.” And according to you my “heresy” was the root of the denial of the salvation dogma.  Now we will see that you, R.I., don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and that you are an evil schismatic.  The Council of Elvira taught the exact same thing that I said.

Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin.  Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion.  If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

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 you called heretical and the root heresy of the great apostasy!  Begone Satan, you have been refuted.  This fact shows again that you don’t understand heresy at all.  It blows away your heretical abjuration and your false theology and proves again that you are a schismatic. You stated that my position makes me a heretic, when my position is not only not heretical, but exactly what the Church has always taught – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.  So burn your heretical abjuration!  Recant your accusation, you non-Catholic schismatic.  Cease condemning Catholics who don’t hold to heresy; stop leading others into schism – and tear apart your heretical writings which are filled with denials of the truth that heretics must be obstinate.

R. I.’s Abjuration, #31: “… I acknowledge all those in these latter days of the Great Apostasy with the use of reason, who are associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II as non-Catholics who have been latae sententiae excommunicated, and are outside the Catholic Church with no exceptions or excuses for ignorance.”

We can see that this solemn affirmation in your abjuration is clearly false.  Your whole evil schismatic program should be flushed down the toilet.  You are also probably unaware that the Holy Office declared in 1882 that no abjuration of heresy is required for converts under the age of fourteen (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 45).  Now, it is true that certain people can become heretics before the age of fourteen, if they are clearly obstinate against a dogma or the Church.  Such persons should make an abjuration.  But the point is that not all of them become heretics at the age of reason, contrary to your heretical assertion.  They become heretics when they obstinately reject a Catholic teaching.   You would have to say that such a declaration of the Holy Office is completely heretical, as you have said that I am heretical and that every person above reason at every chapel is heretical. But there is more to refute your schism… St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church) teaches the same thing that I said, which you called heretical, in The Catholic Controversy, when he is refuting the Calvinist heretics.

St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, p. 334, to the Calvinists: “For, by supposition, let us say that there was never Church, nor Council, nor pastor, nor doctor, since the Apostles, and that the Holy Scripture contains only those books which it pleases Calvin, Beza, and Martyr to acknowledge; that there is no infallible rule for understanding it rightly, but that it is at the mercy of the notions of everybody who likes to maintain that he is interpreting Scripture by Scripture, and by the analogy of the faith – as one might say he would get to understand Aristotle by Aristotle and by the analogy of philosophy.  Only let us acknowledge that this Scripture is divine.  And I maintain before all equitable judges that if not all, at least those amongst you who had some knowledge and ability, are inexcusable, and cannot defend their choice of religion from lightness and rashness.”

Now, 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 you 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 you said and your false abjuration professes.  So, you would have to condemn St. Francis De Sales as a heretic, just as you condemned me as a heretic, and just as you condemn every single person (above reason) at every traditional chapel as a heretic. R.I., you couldn’t be more thoroughly refuted by the facts.  And, to preempt your possible escape attempt, note that St. Francis is clearly speaking of the children of Calvinists above reason, since infants below the age of reason cannot make a “choice of religion.” Yet, there is still more to refute your heretical and schismatical position.  Pope Pius XI also blows your schism away by teaching exactly what I said and what you said makes me a heretic.

Pope Pius XI, Ecclesiam Dei, Encyclical on St. Josaphat, Nov. 12, 1923: “Our Saint [Josaphat] was born of schismatic parents but was validly baptized and received the name of John.  From his earliest years he lived a saintly life.  Although he was much impressed by the splendors of the Slavic liturgy, he always sought therein first and foremost the truth and glory of God.  Because of this, and not because he was impressed by arguments, even as a child he turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic Church.  Of this Church he always considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received.  What is more, he felt himself called by a special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.”

Pope Pius XI says here in Ecclesiam Dei that St. Josaphat was born of Eastern Schismatic parents.  St. Josaphat was validly baptized as an infant (and thus became a Catholic).  As he grew up, he attended the Eastern Schismatic Slavic liturgy with his parents, but was still a Catholic and even “saintly” according to Pope Pius XI!  He was a Catholic, even though he was attending a schismatic church, because he had not obstinately embraced the Eastern Schism by rejecting the Papacy!  Thus, his baptism as an infant made him a member of the Church (and subject to the Roman Pontiff) and he did not cease to be a member until he obstinately embraced schism or heresy, which he did not, even though he was attending a schismatic church with his parents.  This is a precise articulation of my position on when the baptized children of heretics become heretics: it is not at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace heresy or schism! Later on in life, as St. Josaphat learned more, he rejected the Eastern Schism and converted thousands of Eastern Schismatics and was one of the Church’s greatest defenders of Papal Primacy.  Yet, in his youth, he attended a schismatic church but was still a Catholic because he was: 1) baptized; 2) believed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (Trinity and Incarnation); 3) did not obstinately reject a Catholic dogma he was aware of or hold something incompatible with Faith in the Trinity or the natural law; and 4) did not divide himself from the Church’s government (into which he was incorporated at baptism) by obstinately rejecting the authority of the true Church.  Pope Pius XI is expressing exactly what I said and what you said makes me a heretic.  You would have to condemn Pope Pius XI as a non-Catholic heretic, just as you condemn every single person (above reason) at every traditional chapel as a heretic. As anyone can see, this teaching of Pope Pius XI, which merely reiterates that truth that baptized Catholics don’t become heretics by osmosis at the age of reason, but when they embrace heresy and schism themselves, clearly blows away your abjuration again.  But it also destroys your position that all who are attending the Masses of heretical “traditional” priests are heretics. R. I.’s Abjuration, #32. “I reject and condemn any sect or person that teach that “Catholics” can attend the Masses of manifest/notorious heretics, or Masses of those who are in communion with manifest/notorious heretics. Therefore, I reject, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, all priests who pray in communion (una cum) with Antipope John Paul II in the Te Igitur prayer of the Canon of the Mass. I reject and condemn all the laymen who attend these churches and chapels, and acknowledge them as apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.” This is obviously nonsense, refuted by the Council of Elvira, St. Francis De Sales, Pope Pius XI and others.  If St. Josaphat was a Catholic because he did not embrace the Eastern Schism even though he was attending the Eastern schismatic church with his parents, then obviously it is false and ridiculous to say that all the people attending the Masses of heretical “traditional” priests are heretics!  Burn your heretical abjuration, R.I., and your heretical and schismatical writings; stop deceiving people with your schismatic views. And to preempt a possible objection that you may make in desperation, Pope Pius XI was clearly indicating that St. Josaphat was attending a schismatic church with his parents, not a Catholic church.  Look again at his words:

Pope Pius XI, Ecclesiam Dei, Encyclical on St. Josaphat, Nov. 12, 1923: “Our Saint [Josaphat] was born of schismatic parents but was validly baptized and received the name of John.  From his earliest years he lived a saintly life.  …even as a child he turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic Church.  Of this Church he always considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received.  What is more, he felt himself called by a special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.”

If St. Josaphat went to a Catholic church then Pius XI’s words make no sense whatsoever.  Pius XI would have just said that St. Josaphat went to a Catholic church which was in communion with Rome, but he didn’t.  He said: ”even as a child he turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic Church.  Of this Church he always considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received.” Also, don’t attempt to respond by stating that other authorities say that St. Josaphat’s parents were Catholics.  This makes no difference to my point, which is that Pope Pius XI thought that St. Josaphat’s parents were schismatics but still taught that St. Josaphat was not a schismatic (because he did not embrace the schism of his parents), even though he was attending the schismatic church building. And this truth is exactly what is expressed by Pope Clement VI.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.  In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)

In this teaching of Pope Clement VI we see the truth discussed above – and the position I enunciated – articulated precisely.  All baptized infants receive the Catholic Faith in baptism, even in heretical church buildings.  Those baptized as infants don’t lose the Catholic Faith until they “withdraw” from communion with the Catholic Church or until they obstinately deny one of Her teachings, in other words, as Clement VI says, “if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”  It is at that point – the point of their obstinate rejection of the Catholic Faith or a Catholic dogma or their deliberate separation from Church authority – that they become “schismatic and heretical.”  At that point they are “outside obedience of the Pope of Rome” (having divided themselves from the Church into which they were incorporated at baptism) and are not Catholic.  But their excommunication and automatic expulsion from the Catholic Church doesn’t occur until that point, contrary to your false abjuration.  This teaching of Clement VI, with the others, vindicates my position and again refutes yours, of course.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, A. 2: “Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: “For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all.”

---

We can see that R.I.’s position is clearly refuted by the teaching of the Catholic Church.  Those who have signed his heretical and schismatical abjuration and obstinately defend it have entered a non-Catholic sect and become schismatics.

St. Augustine, Faith and the Creed, 393 A.D.: “We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do.  Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor.”

Schism is defined as a sin against charity, because schismatics unjustifiably break communion with Catholics who hold to no heresy, and condemn people as heretics without justification.  R.I.’s false views are clearly schismatic and a mortal sin against charity.  R.I. is also a heretic who, by his positions, denies the dogma that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, as I proved in “Refuting R.I.”  But his heresy is entwined with his schism. Those who refuse to denounce him as a schismatic and a heretic after seeing these facts are heretics. Those who have read the above facts should easily see that R.I. is definitely used by Satan to take uncompromising traditional Catholics into schism and outside the Catholic Church.  R.I. refused to debate me in cowardly fashion, after accusing us of heresy, because he sensed that he would be refuted; and he was correct.  Because those who have signed R.I.’s schismatical abjuration and obstinately embraced his positions have fallen into schism and actually entered a non-Catholic sect, such an act needs to be abjured.  They need to make the Profession of Faith from the Council of Trent for converts (available on our website) and at the end of it they need to add that they reject the sect and abjuration of R.I.  After that, they need to confess to a validly ordained priest that they signed a schismatical abjuration form which condemns as heretics people who are not heretics.  And all who are familiar with R.I.’s writings should be referred to this article.

OTHER BRIEF POINTS REGARDING THE SCHISMATIC R.I.

It is also worth noting that R.I. claims that all of his writings are “by the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ,” with his cooperation – as if his writings flow forth directly from Jesus Christ through the “pure medium” R.I!  This is clearly presumptuous and blasphemous, and reveals R.I.’s astounding pride and false view of himself.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, on Heretics: “We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.  They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride.”

R.I. also claims to be one of the two witnesses of the Apocalypse, when he is clearly not.  On the contrary, I have shown on dogmatic grounds that he is a non-Catholic schismatic, and thus a false prophet.  When people claim to be prophets, but aren’t, they are most probably possessed. R.I. also recently changed #23 of his abjuration!  Regarding a baptism issue which is not related to the issue discussed in this article, R.I changed his position and no longer condemns as schismatics those whom his abjuration solemnly declared to be schismatics.  So much for that!  Writings “by the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ” don’t need revision.  So he got his followers to sign and solemnly denounce as non-Catholic schismatics people whom he now admits are not even schismatics. I’m also stunned by the bad will of his followers who have signed his abjuration form.  I have spoken to some of them and carefully explained the contradictions in his position, but they refuse to admit there is any contradiction.  They are following a man, and not Jesus Christ.  For instance, they say there is no excuse for anyone to believe that John Paul II is the Pope even if they haven’t seen his heresies or the teaching proving that he is not the Pope.  But when I bring up the case of Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio, who both thought that the manifest apostate Paul VI was the Pope, they excuse them by saying “it’s not the same.”  Here is what one of R.I.’s followers wrote to me when I asked her about this issue:

“The issues regarding Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio, I still maintain, are different from today's situation. The heresies then weren't as manifest as they are today.”

This shows the disgusting bad will of the followers of R.I.  They are no different from liars.  If Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio could be Catholics because they had not seen the evidence against Paul VI and the teaching proving that he was not the Pope, then it is possible for people today to be in the same situation, even if the number is smaller.  To deny this is to deny that revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle and to state that a new public revelation has occurred to all between the death of Fr. Feeney and today.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned

They are so blinded that they cannot perceive that if Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio were excused because the issue was not manifested to them individually, then it is still a matter of the heresies and the sedevacantist issue being manifest to the individual.  But they deny this, and state that today it is no longer necessary for the issue to be manifest to the individual.  No, they say everyone is culpable today because the issue is somehow manifest corporately to all.  Thus, they teach a new revelation; they deny the above dogma and are heretics.  They are following a man, and rejecting Christ. The followers of R.I. are also incapable of logical arguments, and when presented with them they quickly have recourse to emotion.  For instance, when you prove to them that it is unjustified on theological grounds to say that all people without exception who still believe that John Paul II is the Pope are heretics (as I have proven in this article), they respond by arguments which make it seem as if you are justifying believing that John Paul II is the Pope.  That is uncharitable, bad willed and cowardly because it runs from facts.  An honest person can see that by (correctly) pointing out that some people who have not seen the evidence against John Paul II may be Catholics one is not justifying those who have seen the evidence.  Or when you point out to them how one cannot condemn all the children of SSPX members as heretics, they say “well then how can you judge John Paul II as a heretic?”  Any sincere person can see the illogic in this.  We can judge that John Paul II is a heretic because it is easily proven that he rejects teachings of the Church; they cannot prove that all the people they condemn reject teachings of the Catholic Church.  But because they are not following the truth, but rather are believing only on emotion, logic goes out the window. In fact, the followers of R.I. are following a false Christ.  They are following a false Christ because they are following a man who preaches a new revelation not taught by Jesus Christ and “proves” it solely on his authority.  Allow me to prove the point: They profess that everyone without exception “in the latter days of the great apostasy” who believes that John Paul II is the Pope is a heretic.  But, as I said, they make exceptions for Fr. Feeney, etc..  So, when I ask them when the “latter days of the great apostasy” began and when all exceptions for believing that John Paul II is the Pope (due to ignorance of his heresies, etc.) ceased, they cannot give me a date!  So, think about this: if they cannot even give me a date as to when the “latter days of the great apostasy” began and all exceptions ceased, but are solemnly professing it as infallible truth anyway, upon whose authority are they making this act of Faith?  The answer is that they are making this solemn profession of Faith, that all exceptions to believing that John Paul II is Pope have ceased today, solely on R.I.’s authority!  They have made an act of Faith on something that can only be substantiated on the word of R.I.  Thus, whether they admit it or not, they are worshipping R.I. as a false Christ, who declares a new public revelation; and this new revelation which he preaches contradicts the Revelation given by Jesus Christ on what are the absolutely essential mysteries of Faith which all must know without exception since the death of the last apostle until the end of the world. One of R.I.’s followers was even asked what the necessary truths of salvation are for a person to absolutely know.  His follower answered in an e-mail I read: “The 46 articles” composed by R.I.  This reminds me strikingly of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the “Church of England” (the Anglican Sect), a formulation of their beliefs which was imposed on its clergy as a profession of Faith in 1571.  R.I. is a schismatic and the founder of his own sect, just like the major Protestant heretics. The difference between R.I. and the Protestant heresiarchs is that his sect is more alluring and deceiving for Catholics because it professes many truths of the Catholic Faith and condemns many people who are in fact heretics – but then proceeds to condemn many people who are not heretics. In fact, after signing the “46 articles,” many of the followers of R.I. even send in their signed abjuration form to his residence!  Those who sign his schismatic abjuration are entering a non-Catholic sect, which is headed by R.I. But then we have the people who go from the extreme schismatic views of R.I. to liberalism and justifying heretics.  I’ve seen a number of people who, after abandoning R.I.’s schismatic views, go to the other extreme and justify many “traditionalists” who are in fact heretics and can be shown to be heretics.  Frankly, this shows the bad will of the people who get wrapped up in the schism of R.I.: they go from one error to another, failing to see the true position at every turn.

THIS TEACHING ON WHEN PEOPLE BECOME HERETICS MAKES PERFECT SENSE

The position discussed in this article on when the baptized children of heretics become heretics makes perfect sense.  For instance, when King Henry VIII imposed his schismatical oath of Supremacy he tore all the churches in England from communion with the Catholic Church and instantly made them Protestant churches.  Did all of the people in those churches instantly become Protestant heretics and fall outside the Catholic Church?   No, of course not.  They became heretics and schismatics when they individually embraced the heresy and the schism of Henry VIII. Another good example would be the Great Western Schism.  During the Great Western Schism Catholics were following three different claimants to the Papal Throne.  Only one was the true Pope, while the rest of the Catholics were attending churches which were, strictly speaking, not in communion with the Catholic Church but a false hierarchy.  Were all of these people attending these churches ipso facto non-Catholics because they were in church buildings which were not in communion with the Church?  No.  Even though they were attending church buildings which were not in communion with the Catholic Church (the true Church of Christ), they were not aware of this fact and were not guilty of heresy or schism.   Since they were not guilty of heresy or schism they were still members of the Catholic Church. Below is a brief study of this teaching concerning when the baptized children of heretics become heretics.  This study shows how this truth is perfectly in line with all the definitions of the Church declaring that all who die as  non-Catholics are lost; that all who die without the Catholic Faith are lost; that all must be inside the government of the Church to be saved; that all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved; and that all must have the Catholic Faith to be saved.