Refuting R. I.
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
In
this Article:
Intro to R. I.’s
Principal Heresy
Breaking down R. I.’s
Principal Heresy
R. I. cracks and repudiates his own
abjuration under interrogation
R. I.’s Retreat
R. I.’s Degrees of Schism
R. I. is a False Prophet by his own admission
Introduction to R. I.’s
Principal Heresy
Since we have added a book/article review section to our website, we
felt that it was appropriate to have an article refuting the primary claims of
R. I. and exposing his principal heresy.
For those of you not familiar with R. I. (I abbreviate his name so as
not to further perpetuate his views), this article may not have tremendous
relevance. However, this article is written specifically for that small number of people
who may have been influenced by R. I.’s writings. This article is not meant to be an in-depth
refutation of R. I., but primarily an expose of his chief heresy, which is the
dynamic at work behind almost all of his schismatic conclusions.
R. I. holds that every person above the age of reason who still believes
that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope is a heretic without any
exceptions. He also holds that every
single person who attends a Mass said by a priest who prays in communion with
Antipope John Paul II is a heretic, even if the person doesn’t agree with or
support the priest. And he further holds
that any person who attends Mass where the priest is negligent in upholding the
faith is a heretic. In addressing these
issues, I will start with the first point: Every
person above reason who still believes that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope
is a heretic without any exceptions.
At Most Holy Family Monastery, we reject this position, as it is
untenable from a theological perspective.
We acknowledge, rather, that all
those who obstinately reject the
Catholic teaching proving that Antipope John Paul II cannot be the Pope
once it has been presented to them and they have digested it – such as the
dogma that heretics are not members of the Church – are heretics.
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.”
We also acknowledge that all those who see Antipope
John Paul II’s heresies (for instance, his agreement
with the Lutherans on the doctrine of Justification) and obstinately maintain
that he is a Catholic (and therefore is one who has the true faith)
are rejecting the Catholic Faith and are heretics. Finally, we acknowledge, in accordance with
Catholic principles, that those who deliberately or culpably ignore the
evidence proving that Antipope John Paul II cannot be the Pope are guilty of
sins of omission and are in communion with heretics.
St. Robert Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
“… for
men are not bound, or able to read hearts; BUT WHEN THEY SEE THAT SOMEONE IS
A HERETIC BY HIS EXTERNAL WORKS, THEY JUDGE HIM TO BE A HERETIC PURE AND
SIMPLE, AND CONDEMN HIM AS A HERETIC.”
However, that being said, none of the above allows us to assert that every single person without exception who
still believes Antipope John Paul II to be the Pope is a heretic. There may be – and most certainly are - some
professing Catholics who detest the heresies of Antipope John Paul II, yet have
not been exposed to the Catholic teaching proving why he cannot be the
Pope. Such persons could certainly be
Catholics in good faith. There also may
be – and most certainly are – some people who possess the Catholic faith (do
not partake in any false worship), yet who simply are unaware of Antipope John
Paul II’s heresies. (This number may be quite small, but that doesn’t allow one to
conclude that none of these people are Catholics).
Therefore, it is unjustified and actually schismatic to formally assert,
as R. I. does, that every single person
without exception who holds that Antipope John Paul II is a Pope is a
heretic. This assertion is schismatic because
it separates R. I. and his followers from communion with Catholics who hold to
no heresy. A schismatic is one who
refuses communion with a true Pope or with true Catholics. Thus, we can only acknowledge as heretics
those whom we know or can demonstrate persist in rejecting a Catholic
teaching. Nevertheless, R. I. has
composed an abjuration formally declaring
that all persons above the age of reason – without
any exceptions whatsoever – who still believe that Antipope John Paul
II is the Pope are heretics. I quote:
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.”
Before examining this claim, I must also prove what
I stated above: that R. I. has also formally declared that everyone without
exception who attends a Mass where the priest believes Antipope John Paul II
to be the Pope is a heretic – even if the person doesn’t agree with or
support the priest.
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 positions are theologically absurd, in addition to being blatantly
heretical and schismatical, as will be proven in the
following breakdown. And please note: by suggesting
and proving, as I will below, that the above positions are theologically
absurd, I am not in the least suggesting that they are absurd because it would
render so many persons who profess to be Catholics and “traditional” Catholics
as heretics. Not at
all. As stated above, all those who
obstinately maintain that Antipope
John Paul II is the Pope, once they have had the chance to see the evidence
relevant to this issue or have deliberately ignored the evidence relevant to
this issue, in addition to all those who see his heresies and still think he
possesses the true faith, are heretics and are not Catholics. This unfortunately includes many, if not
most, of those persons who attend the Latin Mass. (Most of these persons also
obstinately reject the Catholic dogma, Outside
the Church There is No Salvation) But this being the case does not allow
one to formally assert what is asserted above, that every single person without exception who still believes
John Paul II is the Pope is in bad faith and is a heretic.
Breaking down R. I.’s
Principal Heresy
Pope
Pius IX, Quartus Supra #12, Jan.
6, 1873: “… every schism fabricates a
heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”
Never is this statement more true than in the case
of R. I. and the schismatic sect which he has created. Please bear with me as I prove this. Suppose
I were to ask you the question: "how many wills does Jesus Christ have,
one or two?" I have posed this
question to many traditional Catholics, and almost all of them have responded
"one.” This is not correct. Jesus Christ has two wills, a
divine and a human will. Jesus Christ is
one Divine Person with two natures (He has a Divine nature and a human nature)
and therefore He has a Divine will and a human will. If Our Lord did not have a human will then He
would not be truly man as well as truly God.
The idea that Our Lord has only one will was solemnly anathematized by
the Third Council of Constantinople.
Pope St. Agatho, Third Council
of Constantinople, 680-681: “And so
we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in Him and two natural
principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the
holy fathers. And the two natural wills
not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but His human
will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to His
divine and all powerful will.” (Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 128)
To assert that Our Lord Jesus Christ has
only one will is precisely the monothelite
heresy. So, were these Catholics that I
questioned on this issue heretics and outside the Body of Christ for answering
that Christ has "one will"? No, they were not heretics, because
1) they thought this was the Catholic position and didn't understand all the
ramifications of the issue; and 2) they weren't aware that it has been defined
that Christ has two wills: one for each nature.
(Note: If they had comprehended beforehand that to say that Christ has
one will is actually to deny Our Lord’s humanity then they would be heretics,
but this was not the case). Therefore,
to put it simply, these Catholics were not obstinate or pertinacious in
their belief that Christ has one will (i.e., they did not deliberately or
knowingly deny this teaching of the Church) and therefore they were not
heretics.
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.”
And this is a good example of how pertinacity or obstinacy is a
requirement for heresy. Thus, these
Catholics who held that Christ had one will were not heretics unless they
demonstrated obstinacy in this belief; but, being of good will, after I informed these persons that it is a
defined dogma that Christ has two wills (which is intimately connected to the
fact that He has two natures) they immediately changed their position. If
after that point they had affirmed that Christ had only one will, they would
have been heretics and outside the Church.
Therefore, this dogma (Christ's two wills)
is an example of a dogma or a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn't
have to be known positively by all in order to be saved. It can never be
rejected, but some people could be innocently ignorant of it or confused
about it until the Church's teaching is pointed out to them or explained
to them, because a Catholic is not bound to have a positive knowledge of all
the teachings of the Church to be a Catholic.
I hope that the reader is following me so far.
However, with a mystery of faith that must
be positively known by all to be saved, there can be no confusion or
ignorance like that described on Christ's two wills. With these mysteries
– such as the mysteries of the Trinity
and the Incarnation – you must positively know them in order to be
saved, and you must know them positively in all ages. This is why “invincible ignorance” cannot
save anyone, and this idea is a horrible heresy, because no one above reason
who wishes to be saved can be ignorant of the principal mysteries of
Catholicism and be saved.
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754:
“We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently
reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to
Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of
the faith, even those matters
which must be known by necessity of means;
consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4):
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures
laid down by the holy Council of
Here we see Pope Benedict XIV confirming the Catholic teaching that there
are certain mysteries of faith that no one above the age of reason can be
ignorant of and be saved (such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the
Incarnation). But this does not apply
to all the truths of the Catholic faith, as stated above when discussing
the dogma of Christ’s two wills. A
Catholic could be ignorant in good faith of some of the other truths of the faith; but he can never be ignorant of the
Faith itself (i.e., the principal mysteries).
Pope St. Pius X confirms the exact same teaching.
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to
write: ‘We declare that a great number
of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity
because of ignorance of those
mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered
among the elect.’”
Okay, now that we have established that there are certain mysteries of
Catholicism that everyone above the age of reason must positively know in order
to be saved, and that there are many other deeper dogmas (such as Christ’s two
wills) that Catholics above reason could be ignorant in good faith about,
the next important point to realize is that the former category (i.e., the
mysteries of faith that all must positively know to be saved) ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME! I REPEAT, THESE PRINCIPAL MYSTERIES OF THE
CATHOLIC FAITH THAT ALL ABOVE REASON MUST POSITIVELY KNOW IN ORDER TO BE
CATHOLIC AND BE SAVED ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME IN EVERY GENERATION.
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
It is a defined dogma that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic
faith, ended with the apostles. This
means, among other things, that the object of Catholic faith (i.e., what
everyone above reason must positively
know in order to be Catholic and be saved) was the same in the time of the
apostles as it is now.
So the logical question then is: Is the fact that John Paul II is an Antipope
a truth of faith/ dogmatic fact that has to be positively known by all in all
ages to be saved (like the Trinity and Incarnation)? Or is it a something that must be acknowledged
once all the facts from the Magisterium have been
presented to him (like the dogma on Christ's two wills)? Obviously, it is not a truth of faith or a
dogmatic fact that had to be known positively by all in all ages to be saved,
because this dogmatic fact (flowing from the dogma that heretics are not
members of the Church) only became knowable in the last 25 years. Therefore, the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is
not the Pope (flowing from the dogma that heretics are not members of the
Church) is obviously something that must be acknowledged once the facts have
been presented to him, like the dogma on
Christ’s two wills. It does not have to
be known positively by all Catholics in all ages without excuse for ignorance
in order to be saved.
Therefore, in light of these facts, what
does one conclude about the following statement in R. I.’s formal abjuration?
R. I.’s Abjuration, #31: “…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.”
One rightly concludes that this assertion
is completely false, and heretical and schismatical,
as should be obvious to those who have followed the points made already. R. I. has fallen precisely into the
heresy that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith (namely, what
must be positively known by all in all ages), was not completed with the
apostles! R.
One should see that R. I. has transformed
the dogmatic fact (flowing from the dogma that heretics are not members of the
Church) that Antipope John Paul II is not Pope into a truth of faith that must
be known positively by all to be saved (like the Trinity and the Incarnation). And in transforming the dogmatic fact that
Antipope John Paul II is not Pope into
a truth of faith that must be known positively by all to be saved without
excuse for ignorance, R. I. clearly teaches that Revelation, constituting the
object of Catholic Faith – and what we must know positively in all ages to be
saved – did not end with the death of the last apostle, which is heresy!
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
Furthermore, what renders R. I.’s denial of this dogma all the more blatant is the fact
that R. I. even admits that certain Catholics could have been ignorant in good
faith of the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope just a
matter of a few years ago!
R.I., The Abjuration
and…, p. 9: "... the
R. I. has admitted to me that Catholics living in the
1970’s and 1980’s could have been ignorant in good faith of the fact that John
Paul II is an Antipope, because it “was not manifest to all then”! But then R. I. proceeds to assert that in the
year 2003 (a period of time which he defines as “the latter days of the great
apostasy”) no one could possibly be ignorant of the fact that John Paul II is
an Antipope; that is, all above reason must possess a positive knowledge of it
or they are damned. But to admit that the dogmatic fact that John Paul II is an
Antipope was not a fact that everyone had to positively know in 1985 (as
R. I. does) and then to say that everyone has to know it positively (like the Trinity
and Incarnation) in 2003 under pain of damnation, even before the facts are
presented to him, is to say that there has
been a public revelation between 1985 and 2003 (“between the early days of the
Great Apostasy and “the latter days of the Great Apostasy”) a revelation which,
according to R. I., has transformed the dogmatic fact that John Paul II is an
Antipope from something that had to be known once the facts were
presented to him into a mystery of faith that must be positively known
by all without excuse for ignorance (like the Trinity and Incarnation).
Therefore, R. I. clearly rejects
the dogma that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, by rejecting
that the mysteries of faith that must be positively known by all to be saved
without excuse for ignorance are the same today as they were at the death
of the last apostle. Since R. I. and his
followers are obstinate in this heresy (I have pointed it out to them
repeatedly), they are not Catholics, but unfortunately, they are obstinate heretics and schismatics. And this issue alone shows, on dogmatic
grounds, that R. I. and his schismatic sect do not possess the true faith. In fact, this was proven in striking fashion
by an e-mail exchange that I recently had with R. I.
R. I. Cracks and Repudiates His Own Abjuration Under My Interrogation
Off and on for some time, I had been conversing and
debating these points with the followers of R. I. Each time I would present the above facts,
which show that R. I.’s abjuration is heretical and schismatical,
my words would seemingly fall on deaf ears.
R. I. and his followers had no explanation for the heretical portions of
R. I.’s abjuration that I was exposing. So, after I had answered some of R. I.’s questions, I demanded his followers to answer a few of
mine. R. I. obliged and the debate – for
reasons that will soon be clear – came to an abrupt end.
My question to R. I. was the
following:
Q. It is a dogma that Revelation, constituting the object
of Catholic faith, ended with the apostles.
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
How, then, can you say that Catholics
could be innocently ignorant of the fact that John Paul II is not the Pope in
1985 (and therefore that this is not part of the object of faith which must be
known by all to be saved), but then say that all Catholics must positively know
it without exception for any ignorance in 2003?
This is clearly to say that Revelation, the object of Catholic faith
which we all must know without excuse for ignorance, changed since 1985, which
is heresy.
I knew that neither he nor any of his followers
could answer this question, but he tried, and in so doing he made a fatal
mistake.
R.
A. “This is an illogical question, but
I will make an attempt to untwist your words.
I do teach that it is part of the Catholic faith that a notorious heretic cannot be pope, but I also teach it is a
deeper dogma, which Catholics in good faith could deny if it was not taught to
them. However, Catholics can
never deny a basic dogma for any reason.
I have never taught this dogma, or any dogmas, changed, but Catholics
who are ignorant of this teaching are free from guilt if they deny it because
it is a deeper dogma.”
Did you get that? R. I. is admitting
here that the dogmatic fact that a notorious heretic (such as Antipope John
Paul II) cannot be Pope involves a deeper dogma which Catholics in good
faith could deny (i.e., be ignorant of) if it had not been taught to them! This means that, according to R.I., Catholics
today could be in good faith and hold that John Paul II is Pope if the facts
were not taught to them! This statement completely rejects the
positions set forth in his own abjuration, an abjuration that he and his
followers demand others to sign if they would be accepted by them. I quote the statements from his abjuration
again:
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
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
As anyone can see,
when pressed by my interrogation, R. I. completely changed his position from
what is written in his abjuration. He blatantly rejected the position of his
heretical abjuration which he nevertheless still demands others to sign. Thus, rather than attempting to defend his
indefensible and heretical abjuration form, R. I. cracked like an egg and
proved the very point that I had been attempting to point out to he and his
followers for some time. He proved the
point that the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope is
something which all must acknowledge once the relevant facts are available to
him (like the dogma on Christ’s two wills); it is not a mystery of faith
that must be positively known and believed by all above reason for salvation
without any exceptions or excuses for ignorance (such as the dogma of the
Trinity).
R. I.’s Cowardly Retreat
After R. I. sent me
the e-mail wherein he completely repudiated the position of his abjuration
under my interrogation, I sent him a final e-mail pointing out this fact and
demanding that, in honesty, he acknowledge that his abjuration is
heretical. So on 9/4/2003
at 3:35:27 PM he wrote a final e-mail:
“To
the Dimonds. Do not send me
anymore emails, as I will delete them without reading.”
R. I.’s
conscience was obviously convicted by the fact that I had just pointed out a
clear heresy in his abjuration, and that I had caught him totally changing and
repudiating his position. He did not
want to see any more of this. He could
not even bear to read anymore e-mails
from us, as he knew that his lying abjuration had been exposed (by his own
responses!) and he had no explanation for it (as there is none). He also told his few followers to read
nothing of what we would send them, obviously hoping that they would not catch
wind of what had just been exposed. He
then simply disregarded the clear heresy in his abjuration, disregarded the
fact that he had just repudiated his abjuration and completely changed his
position under interrogation, and went on his way.
R. I.’s Degrees of Schism
By refuting R. I.’s principal heresy, one can see the degrees of schism
into which he has fallen; for, as stated already, R. I. not only falsely and
schismatically asserts that every person who still holds that Antipope John
Paul II is the Pope is a heretic (a position he was forced to repudiate under
my interrogation), but he asserts that all without exception who still
attend Mass at a church where the priest holds that Antipope John Paul II is
the Pope are ipso facto heretics.
Now, let’s break this
down, and please bear with me: If some persons could still be Catholics while
holding that John Paul II is the Pope (if they have not seen the facts relating
to the issue and hold to no other heresies), as proven above, and which R. I.’s own e-mail
admits in direct contradiction to his abjuration, then one could also be
unaware in good faith about the fact that one shouldn’t attend the Mass of a
priest who prays in communion with Antipope John Paul II, right? – granting for
the sake of the argument the unproven position that one should never knowingly attend such a
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
Does the reader see
that with this R. I. has reached, if you will, the second degree of
schism? R. I. cannot even lift the first
bar, namely, his claim that all those without exception who still believe that
Antipope John Paul II is the Pope are heretics; but yet, he proceeds to
formally declare (or try to lift) the second, that all those – even sedevacantists – who attend such Masses are heretics. Finally, R. I. not only declares that all
those who attend the Masses of priests who pray in communion with Antipope John
Paul II are heretics, but he even says that all the people attending the Masses
at all the sedevacantist chapels are heretics! He reaches this “third degree” of schism by
pointing out that there are no Catholic priests in the world – which is almost
true, there are hardly any – and therefore that all the chapels in the world
are non-Catholic and therefore all the people in the world who attend these
chapels are non-Catholics. But his
conclusion in this regard is plagued by the same invalid reasoning that led him
to reach the first two degrees of schism.
Even at those sedevacantist chapels where the
priests are heretics for denying Outside
the Church There is No Salvation (which includes almost every one that we
know of), this does not mean that 1) a person attending that chapel is guilty
if he doesn’t agree with or support the priest or 2) all the persons attending
that chapel even are aware of the priest’s heresy. Therefore, one can see that to formally
declare that all such persons are heretics is supremely absurd and totally
schismatic, on the same grounds and for the same reasons as those discussed
above.
R. I. is a False Prophet by his own admission
It is also a fact
worthy of note that R. I., a married man who is no longer with his wife, claims
to be a prophet. He has been claiming
this for some years now. Besides the fact
that R. I. is a heretic and a schismatic, as proven already, R. I. cannot be a
prophet as he claims to be, because he
admits that he was a heretic just a few years ago at the same time he was
proclaiming himself to be a prophet!
Regarding a Latin Mass chapel he attended for a while just a few years
ago (which he now considers to be a non-Catholic church full of notorious
heretics), R. I. writes:
R. I., On the Crimes of Fr..: “I had witnessed several crimes while
attending Fr. [x’s] Masses. I, by God’s grace and assistance, realized that I was just as guilty as
Fr. [x] and the other members of the church. I should have known
better.”
And what was R. I.’s “crime”?
R. I. On the Crimes of Fr…: “I witnessed a member of the Conciliar Church, who goes to the New Mass, approach the
altar rail and receive Holy Communion. I was kneeling next to him on the altar
rail when he received. Talk about being clubbed over the head with the truth.”
And what was his penalty?
R. I., On the Crimes of Fr…: “When I attended Fr. [x’s]
Masses, I was fully culpable of the
crimes committed in the chapel, as are all members of publicly non-Catholic
chapels…”
R.
I., On the Crimes of Fr...: “Great
shame came upon me! God had clubbed me over the head with irrefutable evidence,
which I thank Him every day for, because
He did not allow me to continue to be deceived by the Devil, by the
operation of error. This is how God has always got my attention when I was
going headstrong in the wrong direction.”
Remember, R. I. claimed to be a
prophet this whole time.
R.
I., On the Crimes of Fr…: “After
separating myself from Fr. [x] and his non-Catholic flock, I needed to take one
more step in order to enter the Church. This next necessary step, which I did
not yet want to think about, was the hardest step. It required me to
acknowledge that because of my crimes I
was outside the Catholic Church, I was not Catholic, and had to publicly abjure in writing to
enter the Catholic Church. I had to admit that my sins against the faith were
mortal sins!”
R. I. here shows us, in
striking fashion, that he is indeed a false prophet and deceived by the
devil; for he is admitting that he was outside the Catholic Church at the
same time that he claimed to be a prophet.
By such a striking admission, God is allowing all of R. I.’s few followers a chance to see the proof from R. I.’s own mouth, that R. I. is a false prophet who is used
by the devil to foster schism on the right; for one certainly cannot be a
prophet for the Body of Christ while being outside of it for heresy.
Thankfully, I was able to point
out this major problem to R. I.’s followers in an
e-mail that I sent to them; and R. I.’s response is
again revealing.
Bro. Peter’s Question:
How can R. I. be a “prophet” when he is a heretic? He admitted in his
article on Fr. [x] that he was a heretic and outside the
R.
“Ah, this is just the reason they can
never be prophets, or even Catholics, because they cannot admit they were wrong.
They are full of pride. It takes humility to admit one is wrong, as King David
did when he mortally sinned against God, twice, and that was after God already
made him king. The Bible teaches that the just man first accuses himself and
only then can he be fit to accuse and denounce others.”
Comment:
This has nothing to do with “being wrong.” This has to do with claiming to be a
prophetic teacher of the Catholic faith in the last days while simultaneously
admitting that you are outside of the Catholic Church for denying the
Catholic faith. Only a fool would
say that the two are compatible. So, R. I.’s attempted response that prophets have been wrong is a
truly pitiful attempt to defend the indefensible. I continue with his response:
”I said to another person I was debating, there is not one of us who have been
right in everything when we starting learning the Catholic faith for the first
time, but woe to us if we do not continue to learn and admit when we are wrong,
or we will not only not learn the faith, we will go backward and fall under the
severe wrath of God.”
“Not even prophets are God. Yes, they are men and fallible. Moses, even after
his publicly ministry began, sinned against God and could not enter the
promised… When all my works are revised and finished and pleasing to God,
then the fireworks will start. I assure you. And if you guys do not repent
and convert, you may be the first ones who get burned.”
R. I.’s own testimony
speaks for itself. He witnesses against
himself that he is a false prophet who, if he continues to promote schism and
heresy, will end up being burned. In
fact, R. I.’s
rashness leads him to make statements such as the following diabolical one:
R. I., On the
Crimes of Fr…: “Your children deserve
to be molested by these priests, because the Catholic faith is not your
primary concern, because you have put the Mass before the Faith, and thus you
are not Catholic. God has forgotten you and your children, because you have
forgotten Him.”
While R. I. makes a valid point here, that most so-called “traditional
Catholics" today despicably deny the Faith and care only about the Latin
Mass (i.e., the “Latin Mass alone” heretical mentality) and are therefore not
Catholic, this does not justify the egregious claim that because this is so the
children of such persons who have been molested deserve to be molested. This is another example of R. I.’s invalid reasoning, whereby he states a truth and then
proceeds conclude something that is not warranted by that truth and which is
even evil.
Luke 6:45: “A good man out of the good treasure of
his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the
mouth speaketh.”
There are other problems with R. I.’s
positions, but the above should suffice for the purposes of this article. In the meantime we pray for the conversion of
R. I.
Those who have signed R. I.’s schismatic
abjuration must repudiate it and confess having signed a schismatic profession
of faith which unjustifiably condemns as heretics and schismatics
certain people that cannot be proven to be heretics and schismatics.
Most Holy Family Monastery,