As such, use critical thinking when reading this blog and if you find faults in the logic herein, do not hesitate to contact me. I may or may not agree with your claims, but I will at least entertain your arguments and weigh them against faith and reason. My email is at the bottom of the "Welcome to Pillar and Ground" sidebar section to the right, just above the Blog Archive.
Our salvation from sin, death and hell, dear readers, is dependent upon agreeing with and living the Catholic Faith to our dying breaths. I do not lose sight of the possibility that my salvation may depend upon some insightful email or anonymous blog comment, which may serve to correct some error that I may be blind to, but at this point I am also firmly confident that the Catholic Faith is correctly presented in this blog.
Roman Catechism and "God the Father of Unbelievers"
The article concerning the Church's discipline on Fasting has been updated in an effort to exclude any changes purportedly made to the discipline after the election of a heretic as "pope" in 1878 (whose changes are invalid, as per the Bull of Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio).
"Those who have learned theology well," says St. Basil, “will not allow even one iota of Catholic dogmas to be betrayed. They will, if necessary, willingly undergo any kind of death in their defence." (Apud. Theod., lib. 4, Hist. Eccl., c. xvii.) - The Catholic Dogma, Fr. Michael Müller
Dear friends and others, first of all, I offer my sincere apologies for having been so blind as to have gone only so far in defense of the truth. Leo XIII was a heretic, even before his "election" to the papacy, and while pretending to hold that lofty office, taught contrary to the decrees the very man who would have been his predecessor, Pope Pius IX, and I was blind to it and professing subjection to a heretic antipope. In other words, I have not not been Catholic all this time, but in schismatic subjection to a heretic who was knowable as such and I cannot claim to have been invincibly ignorant. I can wrangle pridefully about it, or I can keep moving forward, follow the teachings of Catholicism to their logical conclusion and reject the heretic and his heresies.
In discussing the objective state of individuals born into heretical and schismatic sects, I presented my position poorly, not emphasizing firmly enough that it is their objective schism upon attaining the age of reason that Catholics are bound to judge, according to the external forum. The issue contains two aspects:
1) The proposition that a child born into a heretical sect which rejects even the Catholic name and the Vicar of Jesus Christ is schismatic upon attaining sufficient use of reason, unless it explicitly professes itself to reject its sect and to be Catholic. This is the position which we have always held, and which we now hold as it is the Catholic position. Support of this position, from St. Thomas Aquinas, can be found in the article: Questions from a reader.
2) The proposition that a child born to self professed Catholics who are in fact heretical or schismatic (such as Novus Ordo "Catholics", or false traditionalists like the SSPX) is to be considered schismatic upon its attaining sufficient use of reason, allowing only for the possible excuse of invincible ignorance (which does not exonerate sin, nor does it free one from the necessity of holding "the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled"). This was not addressed previously in the article, as the main debate between our opponents (the Dimonds) was whether or not a self professed Protestant child could be "Catholic" without knowing it. We of course, reject this as pure heretical nonsense.
The article against the Dimonds has been substantially updated.
Recently (it was recent at the time this article was published) I have written against the Dimonds concerning their soul damning errors, whereby they keep people in communion with the Novus Ordo sect and going to the Masses of heretics who are subject to the antipopes. They are very angry with me and are trying to hurt my credibility. They have spoken some true things about me, including some of my past sins and faults, in such a manner though as to assert that for these reason I "believe in nothing", as though true believers must all have always been Catholic and never have held any past heresies or made any mistakes.
They say I went back to the Novus Ordo after seeing their website. Yes I did. I was guilty of a grave sin. My confusion was no excuse. If I had been taken out of the world at that point, I would rightly be in hell for eternity. I am very sorry. I repent. I abjure. I don't care if the Dimonds forgive me or not, but I hope God does.
They say that I wanted to join their community. I rashly suggested it to one of their group on the phone when I was brand new to traditional Catholicism. I felt alone, and was glad to have someone to talk to. What else can I say? I would never join them now, knowing of their heresies and schisms.
They say I wanted to join Bishop Sanborn. This is true. I even believed in baptism of desire along with him, however I did take it to the same conclusions that he did (i.e. that people could be saved who were pagans, Jews, etc), although I don't know for sure. I don't think I ever gave it that much thought. I now reject the heretic Sanborn.
I had denied God altogether as an evil atheist/agnostic, and then denied (or rather was culpably ignorant of) the salvation dogma and many others for a long time in the Novus Ordo. I was guilty, guilty, guilty. Now I know the truth.
The Dimonds also say that I told a 'nun' at their 'monastery' that I am tall and attractive. Yes, I was vain, I don't deny it. The point is that I don't want to have vanity or pride and I fight against them, beseeching the intercession of Mary Most Holy, but I still have some, though much less than I used to, or rather I consent to it much less. And yes that was a stupid thing to say to a female, even over the phone. I was a miserable wretch and not holy at all (nor even Catholic at the time). May God purify and sanctify me.
Lastly they have accused me of lying about them in two different matters, and here is my response in each one:
To the Dimonds (in response to their assertion that I lied about one of their positions)
***Ordinary and Universal Magisterium doctrines are dogmas, and you hold this position as well. I believed you held contrary to this position as a result of reading your article on Geocentrism (where you fail to identify it as such a dogma, which it undoubtedly is), but after reviewing it I see that I did indeed accidentally misrepresent your words in this matter; I retract my assertion, and I apologize.***
The above paragraph, which remains for posterity, should be amended to say that geocentrism, though not a solemnly defined dogma, nevertheless rises to the level of a doctrine one may not doubt, on account that it was held by unanimous consent of the Fathers in their interpretation of Scripture, and that Galileo's heliocentric proposition was condemned as heresy by the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and this decision was ratified by Pope Alexander VII.
The second matter deals directly with the point above, on a materially heretical pope. The Dimonds believe that a pope can fall into public heresy and still remain pope, as long as he was not obstinate. In other words, they presume innocence, rather than guilt. Their inconsistency in this matter lies in the fact that the '1917 Code of Canon Law', promulgated by a publicly heretical antipope (and therefore not binding on Catholics) states that we are to presume GUILT, not innocence:
The '1917 Code of Canon Law', Canon 2200 §2: "Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven."
So, even though Catholics are not bound to recognize and assent to the '1917 Code', as such (though it can be taken as anecdotal evidence for what the true Canon Law would contain, as every counterfeit has to bear resemblance to the authentic article), the Dimonds believe it IS a valid code of Canon Law, and therefore are shown to be contradicting their own position by presuming innocence on behalf of men claiming to be pope who have publicly taught heresy and professed subjection to heretics (both of these being external violations of the law). If they were to be consistent, then they would have to reject and condemn Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII.
Furthermore, the Dimonds plainly teach that a MANIFEST heretic loses office. Manifest heresy is any instance of heresy that is manifested externally in a public and knowable capacity, thus the Dimonds contradict their own positions (again and again). For an interesting, and more recent, correspondence between Peter Dimond and myself, please read Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics, Debate Analysis (yes I was also affected by pride in the exchange, please forgive me - this is why I don't go looking for debates now).
In the article on dealing with heretics, I asserted that encouraging the prayers of bad willed heretics was both sacrilegious and schismatic, since we would be condoning prayers to a false god, however I must clarify:
a) If the person conveys the following impression to the heretic: "You are bad willed, you are rejecting the grace of the true God, and the only way you will ever know the Truth is if you humble yourself, stop sinning, and make an effort to learn the Catholic Faith, and remain open to the inspirations of the one true God, who will show His truth to you if you sincerely ask Him," this would not be sacrilegious, but meritorious, since it presupposes the necessity to be humble and admit we might be in error.
b) But on the other hand if one is clearly not concerned about making the distinction between the one true God and their false god, and just says "Oh yeah go pray for truth", then this is a scandalous sacrilege that can be understood to be condoning prayers to a false god, making one an accomplice to and thus guilty of idolatry. Unless this were inadvertent due to lack of diligence, then it would most certainly be a schismatic act, in its failure to obey the Church's teachings on communing with heretics in spiritual matters. I would correct the person so that he would realize his sacrilege and not lack diligence in this matter ever again, but if he then disagreed about the need to make this important distinction, then in this case his belief in the one true God is questionable at best, and I would refuse communion at that point, on the just grounds that I believe him to subverted (if he refused my first and second admonition, per Titus 3:10).
c) If a person knows another to be an obstinate heretic, pagan, Muslim, Jew, etc. and says "Just pray for the truth," then they are blatantly encouraging prayers to a false god, and on that account should justly be considered a heretic and a schismatic themselves.
One might reply to such a person: "What?! Is Allah going to reveal the true Catholic Faith to this person?!"
Please also read: Can non-Catholics pray to God?
I believed Baptism of Blood and Desire were heresy but I now believe they are de fide, on account of the admonition of an acquaintance, and the history of Church teaching, especially in the last five centuries.
I most humbly and sincerely beg the forgiveness of any who read my blog for any possible scandal I may have caused, and as always, I am happy to receive sincere messages of correction and reproof from those few remaining souls who know, believe and love the Catholic faith.
May the good and merciful Lord patiently grant me pardon, grace and perseverance.
What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?