PILLAR AND GROUND

Bad Water; Doubtful Baptisms!

2012-02-12T20:56:00.000-08:00

It is possible that many people who believe themselves to have been validly baptized may not be so at all. Let's take a look at two things that ought to immediately make most people baptized in the last several decades (if not longer) seriously question the validity of their baptisms.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, ex cathedra: "Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the Church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water..."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on Baptism, Canon 2, ex cathedra: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Where you baptized with tap water? Are you confident enough to call it "true and natural", despite its potential (and even likely) corruption? Is corrupt water, true and natural water?

This is just a thought. Since the pope, when speaking ex cathedra is infallible, we better be CERTAIN that the water we were baptized with was true and natural.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism: "Now since we said above, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes each of these in Baptism. The matter, then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river water, water from a pond, well or fountain."

And here is an excerpt from Goffine's Instructions on Baptism to emphasize the point:

So unless you are certain that your Baptism was performed with true and natural water, it is prudent to regard your Baptism as doubtful, and as soon as you are able, obtain conditional Baptism, in true and natural (i.e. river/lake, well or rain) water using the same form as Baptism, except beginning with the words "If thou art not baptized," or "If thou art able to be baptized,".

The devil has many tricks up his "sleeves" and surely the large scale corruption of the most necessary matter of the sacrament of baptism could be one of them.

Is this a possible judgment from God for our lukewarmness?

Jesus, to the soul of the deceased (?): "You have called "Lord, Lord", but have never suffered Me to reign in your heart and conscience, in your thoughts, words and deeds, allowing yourself instead to be blinded by your passions. Although you thought yourself baptized, behold! I never knew you! The waters of your baptism were as real and natural as the purity of your evil will. Depart from me you who work iniquity, but know that the mercy of God has spared you greater torment, for your damnation should be greater had you succeeded in uniting such an evil soul to My Body the Church by true Baptism in real and natural water!"

What Must You Do To Get To Heaven?

Update

2012-02-09T20:24:00.001-08:00

This is an update to my "going offline" announcement.

I no longer believe this is necessary. I am in the process of amending my Terms of Service with Google (who owns Blogger).

Blog Main Page

Pillar and Ground Blog is Going Offline

2012-01-01T21:33:00.000-08:00

The content of this site must be moved, and this site taken down. I was wrong to agree to the terms of use of the Google corporation, and here is why:

Google Terms of Service, 20.7: "The Terms, and your relationship with Google under the Terms, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. You and Google agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California to resolve any legal matter arising from the Terms."

Upon further study and understanding, I now realize I was in error, since the "State of California" cannot hold any authority over any Catholic or Catholic interest, as is clearly stated in the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: "#3. (i) each and every member of the following categories - Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquises, Dukes, Kings and Emperors - who: (a) hitherto (as We have already said) have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated [i.e. from the Catholic Faith], or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these;

"...that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity, greater or lesser, any right to vote, active or passive, or authority, or Monasteries and benefices, or Countships, Baronies, Marquisates, Dukedoms, Kingships and positions of Imperial power;

"(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor...

"#5 (vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing..."

In other words, after Pope Paul's great Bull, no Catholic can recognize the so-called jurisdiction of any non-Catholic so-called authority. Therefore, I cannot recognize any authority in the "courts" of California, nor can I agree to do so.

Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio: "#10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul."

This is where the rubber meets the road friends and readers. This blog and my current gmail address are very shortly to be discontinued. If you want to download the contents of this blog before it goes offline, then please use the free software available at http://www.httrack.com/ (no agreement to a license required to download or use it!).

As time permits, I will upload the content of this site's articles to archive.org.

For more about the issue of online contracts, please read the following topics:

7500 Online Shoppers Unknowingly Sold Their Souls

ARE ONLINE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED BY ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES LEGALLY BINDING?

Eli of Prophecy Film is a heretic and a schismatic

2012-01-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

Like Mike Bizarro, the Dimonds, and Ibranyi, Eli(as) of Prophecy Film and his group have much truth, but still hold to manifest contradictions, which keep them out of communion with the Catholic religion. In a series of private emails, Eli, who recently debated Peter Dimond on the issue of sacraments from undeclared heretics, has manifested a number of heretical and schismatic beliefs, which I will enumerate and refute below. What follows is a brief synopsis of the heresies of the Prophecy Film crew:

In contacts with him, he has revealed a severely debilitating lack of attention to important details, if not an outright inability to grasp logical concepts. His responses to my arguments often end in the accusation that I am deliberately lying, followed by a flood of emails to my inbox which say such things as "I can hear your heart beating faster", and "hell will be long for you", and "watch our hell video", and "do you obey the spiritual information on our site, because if not you will be deceived and go to hell", etc. This has lasted as long as a dozen or two dozen emails.

As an example of how little he cares to understand simple concepts, he challenged my position that a manifest heretic (that is to say a person who openly professes heresy) must be rejected unless he is somehow exonerated in the external forum (e.g. by retraction, by a juridical declaration of the Church saying that he was not found to be formally heretical, etc.). He challenged me to give an example of any time in the history of the Church when anybody was condemned as a heretic without having first been proven to be obstinate.

I reminded him that he had himself provided evidence to Peter Dimond in his debate that men are to be considered heretical by the mere fact alone of adhering to sects that profess heresy, and referred him to Graves Ac Diuturnae, which says:

Pope Pius IX, Graves Ac Diuturnae, 1875: #3: "This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

Then, against all reason, he replied to the tune of "it says consider, not judge"! Does the man not understand that both of these words bestow the same obligation? Why do we "judge" someone to be a heretic, if not to act accordingly, and likewise, why do we "consider" someone to be a heretic if not to act accordingly, and denounce and avoid him? Truly Eli has blinded himself to reason by his corrupt faith.

Over the course of the emails (which I admit I should have broken off long before they degenerated to this level [Titus 3:10-11]), his accusations of heresy and of lying became more and more ridiculous, to the point where I plainly and unequivocally told him he was acting like a moron (I hate discoursing in this way). From Eli's eagerly condemnatory, self styled prophetical attitude and the specious reasoning that he shows in support of his heresies, I have to wonder if this was written for him:

Ecclesiastes 7:17: "Be not over just: and be not more wise than is necessary, lest thou become stupid."

Note: Saints have also been very harsh with stupid heretics.

"God is the Father of all men"

Eli (whose email address is in the name of Martin Hansson, for some reason) and his ilk argue that Father also means "fleshly" father, or "creator", and as such, God is the Father of all men, including those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ.

They argue this stance in an attempt to exonerate the antipope Leo XIII from heresy. If Leo XIII had confined his usage of the word "father" to such a contextual meaning, then surely they would have a point, since God did create human nature, and every human soul. But, when considered in the context under which it was proposed by the antipope Leo XIII, it means something altogether different. He clearly enunciates a familial usage of the word Father, as can be drawn from his subsequent writings:

Antipope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum #25, May 15, 1891: "...all men are children of the same common Father, who is God; that all have alike the same last end, which is God Himself, who alone can make either men or angels absolutely and perfectly happy; that EACH AND ALL are redeemed and made sons of God, by Jesus Christ, "the first-born among many brethren"; that the blessings of nature and the gifts of grace belong to the whole human race in common, and that from none except the unworthy is withheld the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven. "If sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and co-heirs with Christ."

Antipope Leo XIII, Adiutricem, 1895: "The mystery of Christ's immense love for us is revealed with dazzling brilliance in the fact that the dying Saviour bequeathed His Mother to His disciple John in the memorable testament: "Behold thy son." Now in John, as the Church has constantly taught, Christ designated the whole human race, and in the first rank are they who are joined with Him by faith. It is in this sense that St. Anselm of Canterbury says: "What dignity, O Virgin, could be more highly prized than to be the Mother of those to whom Christ deigned to be Father and Brother!""

Antipope Leo XIII places all men, even those without faith, in the same family. He makes them all children of God, brothers of Jesus Christ, sons of the Virgin Mary and heirs with Christ. St. Augustine and Pope Leo XII obviously disagrees with him:

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, 1824: "He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: "Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.""

And it is abundantly clear, from the following infallible quotations, including the very words of God Incarnate, that the propositions of Leo XIII, in their context, above are heretical.

St. John 8:42-44: "Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9, ex cathedra: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence Session 11, 1439, ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred..."

Eli and his heretical ilk can no more exonerate Leo XIII for at some times saying the opposite and professing the true doctrine than Novus Ordo people can exonerate such heretics as John Paul II or Benedict XVI, who have done the exact same thing, namely speak out of both sides of their mouths, like all heretics do.

At one point, in a mass email exchange, Eli attempted to bring forth Malachias 2:10 in order to refute the Catholic doctrine that there are two families, that of God and that of the devil.

Malachias 2:10-11: "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?"

But he failed to quote the whole passage.

Malachias 2:10-11: "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why then doth every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? Juda hath transgressed, and abomination hath been committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the DAUGHTER OF A STRANGE GOD."

I believe no further comment on this passage is necessary to show how poor Eli's reasoning skills are when faced with a dogma he obstinately rejects, but for a fuller examination of the "God, the Father of all men" heresy, please read Is God the Father of All Men?.

In the face of all this, Eli has resorted to the common word games of heretics, his last ditch and favourite ploy, arguing that the word "signified", which he mistakenly thought was used in Adiutricem somehow exonerated Leo XIII from heresy. The word used was actually "designated". They are different words, though they have some practical overlap, but neither the difference between the words, nor the use of the word "designate" change the heresy Leo XIII professed.

As a side note: I told him that the words were different and carried different meanings, and this he used as a pretext to accuse me of lying. He was wrong.

Giving the Excuse of Material Heresy to Men who never retracted their heresies

Just like most heretics, who realize that they are wrong, but will not admit it, Eli tacitly admits that Leo XIII believed in heresy (particularly heliocentrism), by switching gears and making the argument that "Well you know there is such a thing as material heresy, but you don't allow for it?"

Here is an exact quote from one of his emails, and my replies:

"Listen to my words, there is something that is called material heresy: Do you deny this, or are you a bold liar? You know what I mean with the death thing, and you will reveal it after death... God will reveal your conscience for all your visitors the second you die, David."

Do you even know what you are saying? "The second you die" is the particular judgment dear man, not the general judgment. Consciences are laid bare at the general judgment.

"Why will you not give the popes the same grace you give yourself David?"

Haha! I do! Why do you think I abjure every time I find I have been in error? Because being in such errors has kept me OUT of the Church, and I abjure to remove the scandal of holding a false doctrine, because Church discipline requires it. Your "popes" have never abjured of the heretical things they said or did.

Come to think of it, I wonder if you have ever abjured, or if you have ever considered the scope and importance of this discipline...

http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/search/label/Abjuration

There are two articles there. I recommend you read them both.

Needless to say, he completely passed over my mention of abjuration. He didn't even acknowledge it. The truth is that I do not consider myself to have been free from guilt when I have held errors in the past. Why?

Psalm 140:4: "Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins."

Eli does not seem to understand that the pope is not the pope because he is another man, but because he is the teacher of all Christians and the custodian of souls. As such, (and Pope Paul IV's Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus confirms this) any manifestation of heretical belief, prior to "election", on behalf of one who appears to hold the office of Cardinal or Pope, disqualifies him from office. he is a manifest (visible) heretic. We do not read hearts, but what we see and hear.

Therefore if a man who died before retracting heretical errors (that is to say errors that were contrary to the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers, or contrary to the Creed, or contrary to any formal definition of the Holy See that was available to them), then we must hold them to have been heretical wolves. Otherwise, we open the door to communing with all kinds of heretics.

Limbo of infants has no fire

Eli accused me of heresy for saying that the portion of hell designated as "Limbo of infants" contains fire. He says that I denied the following "infallible" decree:

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, #26: "The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."

Not only is this NOT a dogmatic definition or condemnation (note the lack of the appellation "heretical", or "anathema"), but this argument on Limbo has already been addressed in great detail in the article Limbo of infants without fire is heretical, including a step by step detailing of what this decree is actually saying, and what it is not saying. Also, note that everything after the word "Update" in the article is in response to an obstinate attempt by Eli to defend his heretical position.

Observing Advent

2011-11-27T10:00:00.001-08:00

For the proper manner of fasting and abstaining, please read: Lent and Fast Days: What is the Church discipline?

Please read also: Instructions for Advent

For detailed instruction on specific days during Advent, please click on the appropriate link in the calendar below:

Calendar for Advent (United States):

November

Date	Day	Liturgical Day	Observance
27	Sunday	1st Sunday in Advent	Holy Day
28	Monday	Ferial Day
29	Tuesday
30	Wednesday

December

Date	Day	Liturgical Day	Observance
1	Thursday	Ferial Day
2	Friday		Fast, Abstinence
3	Saturday		Abstinence
4	Sunday	2nd Sunday of Advent	Holy Day
5	Monday
6	Tuesday
7	Wednesday	Vigil of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary	Fast
8	Thursday	Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary	Holy Day
9	Friday		Fast, Abstinence
10	Saturday		Abstinence
11	Sunday	3rd Sunday of Advent	Holy Day
12	Monday
13	Tuesday
14	Wednesday	Ember Wednesday	Fast
15	Thursday	Octave Day of the Immaculate Conception
16	Friday	Ember Friday	Fast, Abstinence
17	Saturday	Ember Saturday	Fast, Abstinence
18	Sunday	4th Sunday of Advent	Holy Day
19	Monday
20	Tuesday
21	Wednesday
22	Thursday
23	Friday		Fast, Abstinence
24	Saturday	Vigil of the Nativity	Fast, Abstinence
25	Sunday	Nativity of Our Lord	Holy Day
26	Monday
27	Tuesday
28	Wednesday
29	Thursday
30	Friday		Abstinence
31	Saturday

PILLAR AND GROUND

Bad Water; Doubtful Baptisms!

Update

Pillar and Ground Blog is Going Offline

Eli of Prophecy Film is a heretic and a schismatic

Observing Advent

Instructions for Advent

Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Christmas)

Vigil of the Nativity (Christmas Eve)

Ember Saturday in Advent

Ember Friday in Advent

Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (also used for Ember Wednesday in Advent)

Secrets of La Salette

Another Manifest Hypocrisy of Peter

Catholics Marrying Heretics: Forbidden and Condemned without a dispensation

Re: “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” Debate – The Important Quotes

St. Thomas Aquinas against Freemasonic Politicians

American Expatriation Guide

Re: Understanding Christ's Natures

Sermon of Jean-Marie Vianney, Holy Priest of the Most High God: St. Nicholas and the Three Girls

11th Sunday After Pentecost (Instructions on Ceremonies and Evil Speech)

10th Sunday After Pentecost (Instructions on Pride and Grace)

9th Sunday After Pentecost (Destruction of Jerusalem; Death Bed Repentance)

8th Sunday After Pentecost (and Instruction on Detraction)

7th Sunday After Pentecost (and Instruction on Good Works)

Fifty Maxims for Attaining Perfection

6th Sunday After Pentecost (and Instruction on Blessings in the Catholic Church)

Questions from a reader

Bread and Circuses

College Bubble, Inevitable Dollar Collapse

Conspiracies of the Jews

Your children or the State's children? Stop CPS before they even target you.

5th Sunday After Pentecost (Instructions on Anger, Sacrifice)

Questions for Richard Ibranyi

4th Sunday After Pentecost

Good Intention

3rd Sunday After Pentecost

2nd Sunday After Pentecost

Instruction on Impurity

Feast of Corpus Christi

On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar and Holy Communion

Sermon of Jean-Marie Vianney, Holy Priest of the Most High God: Our Work is to Pray