Our
Challenge to
REGARDING WHEN THE BAPTIZED CHILDREN OF HERETICS BECOME HERETICS
– RELATING TO HIS HERETICAL ABJURATION AND THE DOGMA THAT ALL WHO DIE AS
HERETICS ARE LOST
PART 1- 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-
By Bro. Peter
Dimond, O.S.B.
PART
1:
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
Other brief points
regarding the Schismatic R.I.
This Teaching on
When People Become Heretics makes perfect sense
All who die without baptism are lost
Eugene IV defines that all who die as pagans,
Jews, heretics and schismatics are lost
Regarding when and which people are
heretics and schismatics
The Catholic Church teaches that
infants baptized in heretical churches are Catholics
What is the “Catholic Faith” in
its simplest components?
This truth is proven on the
Mission Fields
Further demonstrating the utter
stupidity of the position of R.I.
So, when do the baptized children of heretics
become heretics?
Some
of our readers are familiar with R.I.
Our 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.”
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
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 clearly like 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
clearly like 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.
Seeing that he would not debate us, or
even answer my simple question after I
went first and gave a detailed answer to his question, I composed a final
public letter to him to be posted in this article on our website. In this final letter I reveal the teaching of
the Catholic Church which utterly refutes his position on when the baptized
children of heretics become heretics and shows that what I said is the teaching
of the Catholic Church. These facts blow away his heretical
abjuration and his other schismatic views.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 “
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 ne