refuting RI | the catholic church

a Mass of Contradictions and Illogical Nonsense

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

NOTE: In recent months, this individual R.I. has actually denounced canonized Catholics saints as heretics. Specifically, he has denounced St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas as heretics. This proves what I have said about him, that he is a non-Catholic heretic who has literally founded his own sect. Some people couldn’t see it then, but perhaps they see it now. By denouncing as heretics canonized saints, he actually has put himself on the level of the Protestant reformers. He is now in the category of Protestant revolutionaries Martin Luther, John Calvin and other heretics (such as Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons) who founded their own “Churches.” He would literally have to hold that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy for centuries, by honoring and declaring as saints those he considers non-Catholic heretics, and that it is he who must come to “restore” the purity of the Gospel. He even said that, if he could, he would “bring St. Thomas Aquinas back from Hell, put his skin on him, rip it off, and then pour vinegar on his wounds!” Yes, R.I. actually said this while claiming to be Catholic.

* Note: this is a part 3 against R.I. It presupposes some familiarity with the first two articles refuting him: Refuting R.I. and Our Challenge to Debate R.I. – Refused in Cowardly Fashion.

On Feb. 25, 2005, R.I. came out with a new article that was, in large part, a response to my article against him. This is certain because much of it is a response to specific points that were first brought out in my article. In his article, he just digs himself deeper into contradictions.

R.I. finally gives us a date

For years we have demanded that R.I. tell us when all the people above reason became heretics at the churches he describes in his abjuration.

R. I.’s Abjuration, #31: “I reject and condemn as apostates and heretics, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, any patriarch, primate, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, priest or layman associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II, whose heresies have been manifest to all, along with the papal deposition teachings that are available to anyone who seeks the truth. I acknowledge all those in these latter days of the Great Apostasy with the use of reason, who are associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II as non-Catholics who have been latae sententiae excommunicated, and are outside the Catholic Church with no exceptions or excuses for ignorance.”

R. I.’s Abjuration, #32. “I reject and condemn any sect or person that teach that “Catholics” can attend the Masses of manifest/notorious heretics, or Masses of those who are in communion with manifest/notorious heretics. Therefore, I reject, in these latter days of the Great Apostasy, all priests who pray in communion (una cum) with Antipope John Paul II in the Te Igitur prayer of the Canon of the Mass. I reject and condemn all the laymen who attend these churches and chapels, and acknowledge them as apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.”

For years R.I. ignored this question, but he finally answered it in his recent article. He tells us that all exceptions to believing that John Paul II is the Pope ceased in 1997, with the promulgation of John Paul II’s heretical Catechism. At that point, he says, the heresies of the Conciliar Church were “institutionalized” in all of the churches (including the SSPX churches), so that all the baptized children reaching the age of reason in these churches became non-Catholic heretics.

R.I.: “Once the Anglican heresy was not only accepted in individual churches but also institutionalized in all of the churches, all baptized children attaining the use of reason in these non-Catholic churches became responsible for professing belief in a false religion and joining a heretical sect, and thus lost the habit of the Catholic faith. For heresy to be institutionalized in all of the churches, it would have to be officially promulgated by the head of the new Church (in this case King Henry VIII) to the whole flock and to all of the churches. The whole flock must be required to believe in the heresy. In the Conciliar (Vatican II) Church these conditions were met when its head, apostate Antipope John Paul II, on September 8, 1997, in his so-called Apostolic Constitution Laetamur Magnopere, officially promulgated the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church; in so doing, he bound this catechism and its heresies as the rule of faith upon his whole flock (all of the bishops, priests, and laymen) and thus all of the churches under him.”

But in the same article, R.I. says that the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic sect that was founded by Paul VI in 1965.

R.I. “The promulgation of the Vatican II documents by its apostate leader, Antipope Paul VI, was the genesis of the Conciliar (Vatican II) Church. The heretical Vatican II Council created the Conciliar Church, just like the Oath of Supremacy in England created the Anglican Church.”

He admits that the Conciliar Church, a non-Catholic sect, was founded in 1965 with the promulgation of Vatican II. But he says that all the people at these non-Catholic churches didn’t become heretics until 1997! Thus, R.I. admits that people were attending the non-Catholic churches of a non-Catholic sect (the Conciliar Church), and even officiating at them as priests (such as Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio), for up to 32 years (1965-1997), and were still not necessarily heretics. Does anyone not see that this is a complete contradiction to his position? Does anyone not see what a death-blow this is to R.I.’s whole schismatic theology? It is a death-blow to his position because it proves that R.I. agrees with us that people become heretics and join non-Catholic sects when they become aware of the heresy and then obstinately reject the Catholic position. But R.I. has condemned that position as totally heretical!

R.I.: “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 19^th century.”

That which R.I. says is the root denial of the salvation dogma is exactly what he also teaches above. He teaches that people were attending these non-Catholic Conciliar churches for 32 years but still weren’t heretics because they weren’t aware of the issues! Does anyone fail to see the evil behind this totally blinded hypocrite? He condemns the true position (when we teach it) and then teaches the same thing when it is convenient for him. Let’s continue exposing this schismatic hypocrite.

R.I. says that in order for all the children to become culpable at the age of reason, the heresy must be institutionalized in all the churches. This happens, according to R.I., when leader of the sect promulgates the heresies and binds them upon all of his subjects.

R.I.: “For heresy to be institutionalized in all of the churches, it would have to be officially promulgated by the head of the new Church (in this case King Henry VIII) to the whole flock and to all of the churches. The whole flock must be required to believe in the heresy. In the Conciliar (Vatican II) Church these conditions were met when its head, apostate Antipope John Paul II, on September 8, 1997….”

But R.I. is wrong again; the heresies of the Conciliar Church were institutionalized (according to his definition) in all of the churches not in 1997, but in 1965, because Paul VI solemnly approved, promulgated and bound all his subjects to the heretical teachings of Vatican II.

EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF V-2 ENDS WITH THESE WORDS:

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

In his speech closing Vatican II, Paul VI also solemnly bound all the faithful to the decrees of Vatican II. Notice the bolded and underlined portion below:

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Vatican II Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY [AT VATICAN II] IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

This, ladies and gentlemen, blows away R.I.’s entire article and his abjuration. It proves that, according to his own definition, the heresies of the Vatican II Church were institutionalized in 1965, when Paul VI bound all of his flock to accept the Vatican II heresies.

R.I.: “For heresy to be institutionalized in all of the churches, it would have to be officially promulgated by the head of the new Church (in this case King Henry VIII) to the whole flock and to all of the churches. The whole flock must be required to believe in the heresy. In the Conciliar (Vatican II) Church these conditions were met when its head, apostate Antipope John Paul II, on September 8, 1997….”

I just proved that this happened in 1965. Hence, this means that R.I. would have to say that all people (above reason) at all the Conciliar Churches were non-Catholic heretics beginning in 1965, but he doesn’t! R.I. says that people were attending these non-Catholic churches – and even working at them as priests – for a whopping 32 more years and still could have been Catholics, until 1997! This proves: 1) that R.I. doesn’t know what he is talking about; for the heresies were institutionalized, according to his own definition, in 1965, not in 1997 as he says; and 2) he is a heretic who denies the salvation dogma according to his own criteria; because he composed a letter stating that we (the Dimond Brothers) deny the salvation dogma (which is NONSENSE) – for teaching that the children of sect members don’t become sect members at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace the sect’s heresy – when he teaches the exact same thing, by stating that people were attending a non-Catholic church for 32 years before they became members of the non-Catholic sect!

Thus, by his own definition, he denies the salvation dogma, and he is a complete heretic who holds the “root heresy of the great apostasy.” R.I. is a complete abomination who is as blind as a bat, who doesn’t know what he is talking about. When the blind (such as R.I.) lead the blind, both fall into the ditch – the everlasting ditch of hell where he is headed. But there is more contradictory nonsense in his article:

R.I.: “Once the Anglican heresy was not only accepted in individual churches but also institutionalized in all of the churches, all baptized children attaining the use of reason in these non-Catholic churches became responsible for professing belief in a false religion and joining a heretical sect, and thus lost the habit of the Catholic faith. For heresy to be institutionalized in all of the churches, it would have to be officially promulgated by the head of the new Church (in this case King Henry VIII) to the whole flock and to all of the churches. The whole flock must be required to believe in the heresy.”

He says the heresies must be institutionalized in all the churches for all the children to become culpable heretics at the age of reason. He uses the Anglican sect as an example. (He thus admits that people were attending the Anglican churches for a period of time and were not heretics because Henry VIII didn’t yet “institutionalize” them. Thus, he again embraces our position, the very position he has condemned as heretical.)

But, let’s think about this: in order for all the children to become culpable, he says, the sect’s leader must bind the whole sect to the heresies. But most Protestant sects don’t have a head who has bound them to anything. The Anglican Sect, which recognized Henry VIII as its head, was unusual in that it recognized a head. Most Protestants sects recognize no authority whatsoever and therefore the heresy could not be institutionalized (according to R.I.’s definition) in all Protestant churches even for hundreds of years. Therefore, R.I. is admitting that it’s acceptable to believe that certain people above reason at these Protestant churches (where the heresy has not yet been “institutionalized” by the promulgation of the heresy by the head of the sect, since the sect recognizes no head) may be Catholics! Anyone with an ounce of Catholic common sense can see that this totally contradicts his entire position, and embraces the very thing he calls heretical.

R.I. is always contradicting himself because his position is false

The schismatic R.I.’s position on when people become heretics will always be contradictory, as we have proven again and again, because it is false. He fails to realize the truth that people don’t become heretics corporately, but individually. He fails to realize what we proved in the article, that the children of heretics become heretics, not at the age of reason – nor in a coruscating flash that instantly knocks everyone going to a particular priest for Mass outside the Church – but as soon as they obstinately reject a Catholic dogma or the authority of the Catholic Church.

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)

Clement VI teaches exactly what we taught in our article and what R.I. called heretical. But then R.I. teaches this same position at times (e.g., when he admits that people attending the Conciliar churches were Catholics from 1965 to 1997 until they obstinately embraced the heresy), but then rejects it at other times (e.g., when he says that all at these churches without exception became heretics in a sudden flash in 1997). He is thus a liar and a double-tongued heretic.

Even if the heresy were institutionalized in 1997 it still wouldn’t prove his abjuration

I proved above that R.I.’s assertion that the Vatican II heresies were institutionalized in the Vatican II churches in 1997 is incorrect, as it happened (by the standard of his own definition) when Paul VI bound his flock to Vatican II in 1965. But what does John Paul II’s promulgation of the New Catechism have to do with R.I.’s declaration that all the people at the SSPX and other independent chapels are heretics “without any exception or excuses for ignorance”? The SSPX and other independent chapels don’t use the New Catechism, so his assertion that they are all heretics based upon the promulgation of the New Catechism is clearly false and schismatic. Further, just because the New Catechism was promulgated in 1997 doesn’t mean that everyone in those churches became a heretic at that very instant, just like everyone in the Vatican II churches didn’t become heretics the day after Paul VI promulgated Vatican II. R.I. is just making up things as he goes along; his schismatic heart is closed to the truth that they become heretics when they obstinately embrace the heresies in the New Catechism or the heresies of Vatican II or John Paul II or obstinately reject the facts proving that John Paul II is not Pope.

R.I.’s own life is a good example to refute his schismatic theology

Before R.I. was a Sedevacantist, he believed that John Paul II was the Pope and attended various “traditional chapels,” including SSPX, etc. He believed that John Paul II was the Pope, even though he denounced his scandalous activities. He believed that one could not judge that John Paul II is not the Pope, and thought that Fr. Wathen’s book Who Shall Ascend, which denounces Sedevacantism, was excellent and “covers it all from A to Z.” R.I. wrongly thought that the Consecration of the bread in the new Mass is valid, and that Bishop Lefebvre was only a material heretic for teaching that souls can be saved in false religions. R.I. holds none of those positions today. Do I believe that R.I. was a heretic at that time? No, because he rejected what he knew about John Paul II’s scandalous activities as contrary to the Faith, and hadn’t seen Fr. Wathen’s position on Sedevacantism refuted. Nor had he seen his position on the New Mass being valid, etc. refuted. But, if he maintained those positions after they were refuted for him, he would have been a heretic – just like he is definitely a heretic and a schismatic now for denying the dogma that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (as I proved in “Refuting R.I.”) and condemning as heretics many people who are not.

R.I. attempts to mitigate the effects of his schismatic blunder

In his article, while basically admitting that his position is indefensible, R.I. says in so many words that even if he is wrong about this it is not a big deal!

R.I. “One certainly cannot say that my opinion places me in schism, for from whom would I be in schism? Whom am I illegally avoiding in religious matters? Am I in schism from children under the age of fourteen who have the use of reason and who are members of the notoriously heretical Vatican II Church whose heresies have been institutionalized in its local churches in these latter days of the Great Apostasy?”

R.I., your abjuration and your other declarations absolutely and without a doubt place you in schism. You have without a doubt created your own sect. You are in schism from all the Catholics at the independent “traditional” chapels whom you say are heretics who are not, both those under 14 and those above 14. If you weren’t a schismatic who rejects the obstinacy requirement for heresy, and who condemns people as heretics who are not (such as ourselves), then you would see the falsity of your other schismatic positions, such as:

R.I.’s abjuration, #34: “I reject and condemn as illegal and schismatic any bishop or priest that was consecrated or ordained by the non-Catholic Bishops, Marcel Lefebvre, De Castro Mayer, Noe Thuc, Carmona, Musey, Roberto Martinez, Guerand des Lauriers, Mendez, Clarence Kelly, Robert McKenna, Oliver Oravec, John Hesson, Mark Pivarunas, Dolan, Vezelis, Patrick Taylor, Thomas Sebastian, or any non-Catholic bishop or priest in their lineage who has not repented and abjured from his illegal consecration or ordination.”

This is clearly false and schismatic. Just because a priest was ordained or consecrated by one of these men does not mean that the priest is a heretic or a schismatic, for he may not have been aware that such a Bishop was a heretic or a schismatic. If R.I.’s declaration above were true, we would have to say that all the priests ordained by the apostate Archbishop Cushing of Boston (the man who condemned Fr. Feeney) were heretics; but we cannot make that statement. A Catholic with common sense, who is not a schismatic, can clearly see the reasonability of this assertion and the unreasonability of the assertion of R.I.

By rejecting the truth about what constitutes heresy, R.I. falls into all kinds of other schismatical and unnecessary declarations (as shown above). R.I., don’t mock God and attempt to justify your schismatic views and the ridiculous statements in your abjuration by saying: “what does it matter anyway.” It matters because it affects all of your other schismatic views.

More attempted Justification from R.I. for his schismatic blunder

R.I. “Lastly, my opinion is prudent. It is safe. For the sake of the argument, let us rashly presume that there are some Catholics with the use of reason who are in communion with John Paul II and the Vatican II Church in these latter days of the Great Apostasy. What purpose does this rash presumption serve other than to instill a false confidence of being Catholic in the overwhelming majority who are not Catholic. Who would gamble with the fate of souls by daring to presume innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence in these latter days of the Great Apostasy? Who would dare presume to know the limit in which invincible ignorance no longer applies? Are you sure that some of those with the use of reason are innocent? If there were a 50 percent chance that some may be innocent and a 50 percent chance that none are innocent, why gamble with the fate of souls? The safe course is to denounce them all so that the fear of God may come upon all of them and cause them to sincerely seek, embrace, and profess the truth, and thus abjure from the Great Apostasy so as to remove all doubt.”

First, notice that R.I. says that this is now only his “opinion.” Interesting… He knows he cannot refute the facts, so he is abandoning the solemn declaration of #’s 31 and 32 of his abjuration. Now they are only “opinions.” If it’s just his opinion, then why did he have “Catholics” sign this in a solemn abjuration and profession of Faith? He is condemned out of his own mouth, because he has his followers make a solemn profession of absolute Faith in his “opinion.” Here is what his followers signed their names to about each of his 46 “articles,” and tell me that he is not a false Christ binding them to Faith in his false opinions:

R.I.’s abjuration: “I, being of sound mind and reason and by the use of my unrestrained free will, on this date of _______________________, attest, assent, and humbly submit to each and all of the above five pages and forty-six points of this abjuration and profession of faith, in their entirety and without any reservation. I testify that each of my statements and condemnations have not been written over, stricken out, or erased and re-written, and that all the necessary blank lines have been filled in so as to protect from future tampering of this document.”

Those who signed this fell outside the Catholic Church by following the false Christ, R.I., who gets people to make an absolutely profession of Faith purely in his word – something he cannot prove from Church teaching – as if it were the word of Christ or the dogma of the Church (which are the same). By the way, R.I. claims that all of his writings are by “the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.”

Second, R.I. says that only good can come out of his declarations. It is “prudent,” he says, to declare that all who believe that John Paul II is the Pope are heretics without exception; and it is “prudent,” he says, to declare that all people at all the other independent chapels are heretics. If that were true, why doesn’t R.I. declare that all people from 1965 onward were heretics? Wouldn’t that be the safer course and most prudent?

Remember, I proved that Paul VI bound his flock to the heresies of Vatican II in 1965. According to R.I.’s “logic,” it would be most prudent to declare that all from 1965 onward who weren’t sedevacantists and attended any chapel which accepted Paul VI were heretics? But the absurdity of this is obvious, and even R.I. admits that it would be schismatic to condemn the many Catholics who were not aware of the issues at that time, such as Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio. (He has even stated that Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio were saintly). Thus, he refutes his claim that only good can come out of declaring people heretics who are not. No, it is not good, but schismatic.

And the same applies today; it would be schismatic to say that all the people at the independent “traditional” chapels are heretics, even if the number of the Catholics is getting smaller because of the increasing circulation and adoption of the heresies of these groups. One cannot presume or declare them all heretics because these independent traditional churches are not notorious meeting houses of heretics in the external forum. They are not notorious meeting houses of heretics in the external forum, since they claim to be Catholic and claim to adhere to the traditional, pre-Vatican II faith and worship. [Note: A distinction should be made between the independent/“traditional” churches and the churches which adhere to the Novus Ordo religion. The churches which adhere to the Novus Ordo religion, and where the heresies of the Novus Ordo are notoriously taught (which includes most of them), are basically Protestant churches; so that, at this point, it is safe to say that almost all the people who go there are heretics and/or in mortal sin just like the people who attend the Protestant churches, the only difference being that the Protestant churches admit that they reject the Catholic Faith in the external forum. But this situation is not the same at the independent/traditional chapels where the Novus Ordo religion has not been imbibed, since they profess to reject the new religion in its basic content; they reject false ecumenism; and they claim to adhere to traditional Catholic Faith and worship, though they are wrong and/or heretical about one or more dogmatic positions touching upon the Faith today.] There can be individuals at the independent/ “traditional” chapels today who were in the same situation that Fr. Feeney and Padre Pio were with regard to Paul VI. To condemn them without proof is no different from condemning Padre Pio and Fr. Feeney as heretics without proof of obstinacy, which R.I. does not do. One must have evidence of pertinacity against the individual, unless they are present in a notoriously heretical church (such as Protestant or Eastern Schismatic), which is not what we are talking about.

R.I.: “Who would dare presume to know the limit in which invincible ignorance no longer applies? Are you sure that some of those with the use of reason are innocent? If there were a 50 percent chance that some may be innocent and a 50 percent chance that none are innocent, why gamble with the fate of souls? The safe course is to denounce them all so that the fear of God may come upon all of them and cause them to sincerely seek, embrace, and profess the truth, and thus abjure from the Great Apostasy so as to remove all doubt.”

Notice how with R.I. the end always justifies the means. One of R.I.’s followers named P.M. calumniated us publicly by stating that we copied things from a Protestant website, which was a complete lie. P.M. then admitted his sin by acknowledging to us that he didn’t know if what he said was true; it wasn’t true, of course. When I pointed out to P.M. that he was guilty of a grave sin and a calumny, he went running to his false Christ, R.I., to justify his sin. R.I. told P.M. that he was not guilty of calumny or sin in this regard. P.M.’s false conscience was appeased, and he even wrote to me, commenting on R.I.’s words to him, “You see Peter, I am not guilty of calumny.” As I said, with R.I. the end justifies the means.

For instance, in one of his writings he stated that the founder of our Monastery was kicked out of St. Vincent’s Archabbey because he wouldn’t accept the New Mass. But the founder of our Monastery left with permission to start his own Community before the New Mass was promulgated. When that was brought to R.I.’s attention, he said: “So what…” It was no problem that he made it up, because his schismatic end justifies the means.

So, when you refute R.I., as we have, he tries to justify his schismatic positions by saying it “was the safer course” to denounce them all. R.I., then denounce everyone from 1965 onward or shut your schismatic mouth – you abominable coward, who makes a pretense of being a defender of the Faith but refuses to debate us because we would expose your easily refuted positions. When you refute R.I., he will also say that “you are straining out gnats.” Yes, all of your heresies and schismatic declarations are just “gnats,” R.I.

A Revealing Admission

In his article, R.I. writes:

“Culpability of baptized children who profess a false religion or join a heretical sect – This section will deal with baptized children who have attained the use of reason and who profess belief in a false religion or join a heretical sect. Much of what I cover in this section also applies to adults; but because this situation is most common among children, I will only be referring to them.”

This is a very revealing admission by R.I., which probably was missed by his few enamored followers who are blinded by the cult of personality. Notice that he says: “Much of what I cover in this section also applies to adults; but because this situation is most common among children, I will only be referring to them.” What “situation” is he talking about? What “situation” is most common among children? Remember, R.I. has already taught very clearly that all of these people – young children and adults – become heretics at the age of reason. Thus, there is nothing to distinguish and no “situation” to be examined, right? I quote:

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.”

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.”

That’s quite clear: “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.” He clearly teaches that they all become heretics at the age of reason. Thus, there is no “situation” to be considered, so what is he talking about? The fact is that he is now admitting what we said – and what he condemned as heretical – that there is a process by which children become or may not become heretics after the age of reason, even though they were born to sect members. They don’t all become heretics at the age of reason. And because he is now admitting our position, this is why he says that “this situation” is most common among children.

Sorry R.I., but your rash declarations have already told us that there is no “situation” because they all become heretics at the age of reason. But now there is a “situation” whereby children may not become heretics, thus proving that we were correct and that you were schismatic again for declaring that what we said is heretical. You are proving that you have changed your position again.

R.I. unwittingly proves our position on what are the “meetinghouses of heretics”

Here is another important point: R.I.’s statements in his article prove our position on what are “meetinghouses of heretics.” In my article, I pointed out that the baptized children of Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t become Protestant heretics and Eastern Schismatics until they obstinately embrace the heresy and schism of their parents. I also pointed out, however, that if they spend any significant period of time in a notoriously heretical non-Catholic church building (such as Protestant or Eastern Schismatic), which professes to be non-Catholic in the external forum, that they must be presumed to be heretics. I wrote:

It should be pointed out that those people who are above reason in notoriously heretical or schismatical church buildings, such as Protestant or Eastern Schismatic churches, must be presumed to be heretics in the external forum, even if a few of them aren’t because they have not yet obstinately rejected a dogma or the Church. This is because malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven (canon 2200.2). We cannot say infallibly that all of them are, in fact, heretics because it’s possible that a small number of the younger ones are not heretics, but Catholics, as I have shown. But they must be presumed to be, and one could determine whether they are obstinate if one simply met them and asked them some questions about what they know about Catholic teaching and what they are willing to accept.

Further, those few people who may be Catholics in such heretical or schismatical church buildings will almost certainly become heretics and schismatics if they remain surrounded by heretics and schismatics for a significant period of time. The chance that they will not obstinately embrace the heresy surrounding them if they spend many years around it is extremely small.

Further, just because a very small number of the people above reason at such heretical and schismatical church buildings are not necessarily heretics (because they don’t reject any dogma of the Catholic Faith they are aware of) doesn’t mean that they are free from mortal sin. On the contrary, it is probable that almost all of such persons are in mortal sin. Those who are not taught more about the Catholic Faith will not be able, barring an extraordinary grace, to avoid the occasions of sin. If they aren’t taught about the necessity of Confession, avoiding mortal sin and the occasions of sin; if they are not taught about the necessity of devotion to Our Lady and the Rosary; if they are not taught about the necessity of a prayer life, etc., they will most certainly fall into mortal sin in a short period of time.

But, I pointed out that the presumption at the SSPX churches, other independent chapels in communion with John Paul II, and sedevacantist chapels where the priests deny the salvation dogma, would not be exactly the same, since these churches profess to be Catholic and profess to adhere to the traditional Catholic Faith in the external forum, not non-Catholic. I wrote:

Regarding the people who are in churches which profess to be Catholic but are actually heretical since various heresies are held by the priests (such as the churches of the SSPX, etc.), the presumption would not be the same as at the notoriously heretical Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches. This is because these churches (the SSPX’s churches, etc.) profess to be Catholic in the external forum [and profess to hold the pre-Vatican II Faith], even though the priests violate the Faith. Thus, one couldn’t presume that all those who go there are heretics; you must have evidence against the individual to presume him a heretic, which is the case with many of those who go there. If one doesn’t know what a person at such a church believes (the SSPX’s churches, etc.), one would have to get to know him and talk to him about what he believes and is willing to accept to form a judgment about whether he is a heretic.

So, here is my point: R.I. implicitly acknowledges the truth of this position when he admits that the Conciliar Church was founded in 1965, but that all the people didn’t become heretics (according to him) until 1997. Think about this: would he admit that people weren’t heretics who were attending Protestant churches or the Eastern Schismatic churches for 32 years? No (notwithstanding what I proved above about the implications of his contradictory position on the “institutionalization” of heresy at Protestant churches). So, he is admitting that there is some difference between the traditional/independent/SSPX churches, etc. and the Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches, is he not? Yes. What is that difference? The difference is that the independent chapels (SSPX, etc.) profess to be Catholic in the external forum, not non-Catholic. This, in turn, proves that his attempt to equate attendance at an SSPX or a Byzantine liturgy with attendance at an Eastern Schismatic church is false. Whether he realizes it or not, by such an admission he is proving our claim that there is a definite distinction between meeting houses of heretics (Protestant and Eastern Schismatic churches) and churches which profess to be Catholic in the external forum but are heretical (such as SSPX, CMRI, etc.).

R.I. quotes Orestes Brownson and Fr. Muller without knowing that they teach what he condemns

R.I. quotes Fr. Muller and Orestes Brownson as if they agree with him on when people become heretics.

R.I. writes: “Orestes A. Brownson (1803-1876), a great defender of the Salvation Dogma when it was first denied by many so-called Catholics, refuted the heretics that were trying to place baptized children with the use of reason inside the Catholic Church even though these children had professed belief in false religions or had joined heretical sects (such as Protestantism or Anglicanism):”

R.I. “…this is what happened to Fr. Michael Muller who was fighting the Dimond Brother type heretics…”

In his blind pride and ignorance he is oblivious to the fact that they teach many times the very thing he condemns as heretical.

Fr. Michael Muller, The Catholic Dogma, p. 166: “Not guilty of the sin of heresy are all those who, without any fault of theirs, were brought up in a sect of Protestantism, and who never had an opportunity of knowing better. This class of Protestants are called invincibly or inculpably ignorant of the true religion, or material heretics.”

The only way that baptized infants when reaching the age of reason can cease to be Catholic is through heresy, schism or apostasy. But Fr. Muller is saying that many of these people among the Protestants (!) are not guilty of heresy. Yeah, I’m sure he would agree with R.I. that all above reason (without exception) at the SSPX, CMRI, etc. are guilty of heresy! Yeah, sure he would. Thus, Fr. Muller is teaching (whether he would admit it or not) that certain of these people attending Protestant church buildings are still Catholics. Now, I would not have said what Fr. Muller says above. I articulated my position on when these people become heretics in detail in the previous article. All who are Protestants (i.e., all who reject an article of Catholic Faith) are heretics. In my article against R.I., I discussed when people become Protestant heretics. But my point here is simply that R.I. calls Fr. Muller a defender of the salvation dogma, despite the fact that he teaches exactly what R.I. condemns, while R.I. says we are heretical. R.I. is a blind fool.

R.I. also calls Orestes Brownson a defender of the dogma. Here is what Orestes Brownson says, as quoted by Fr. Michael Muller in The Catholic Dogma, p. 61:

Orestes Brownson, as quoted in The Catholic Dogma by Fr. Muller, p. 61: “There are, we like to believe, among Protestants, many individuals who are far superior to their Protestantism…It is not these, as men, as individuals, that we denounce, for many of them we honor and esteem, but the Protestantism with which they are associated.”

If he is saying that he esteems Protestants, then his statement is heretical. But R.I. calls this man a defender of the salvation dogma.

Orestes Brownson and Fr. Muller devastate R.I.’s whole theology

Fr. Muller quoting Orestes Brownson, in The Catholic Dogma, p. 204: “Unquestionably, authorities in any number may be cited to prove – what nobody [EXCEPT R.I.] disputes – that pertinacity in rejecting the authority of the Church is essential to formal or culpable heresy, that persons may be in heretical societies without being culpable heretics, and therefore, that we cannot say that all who live and die in such societies are damned precisely for the sin of heresy.”

Fr. Muller is teaching exactly what R.I. called heresy. He is teaching, via Orestes Brownson, that persons in heretical buildings (such as the SSPX) above reason may not be heretics. I hasten to point out that if it is a notoriously heretical building, such as a Protestant church, all who spend significant time there must be presumed to be