Conditions of salvation 9/1/01
Herein contained is an
explanation regarding the position of
RJ More (“RJM”)regarding the problem of conditional salvation, with an offer
corresponding thereto. It may be conveyed to anyone, without any permission for such
type conveyance ever being sought . There is a $1000.00 reward as asserted in
such position. There simply is no
competent evidence that RJM has yet found that supports the position that the
Church (religion) that JPII is leading is the same Church (religion) that
Christ established to consider against the abundance of evidence that RJM has
found that it is not. There can only be one true religion since that is the
only position compatible with the principle of non-contradiction. Therefore,
the religion that JPII is leading is a false religion. The Catholic Church has
always infallibly taught that no one who remains in & dies in any false
religion can avoid ending up in hell. Therefore no one who remains in the
religion that JPII is leading can avoid ending up in hell.
Since no one has been able
to explain how anyone can be lost in what Br. Dimond claims is the true
Catholic position, i am including it here.
Question - from what source
of authority was the authority conferred/derived according to which the
dogmatic position disseminated and transmitted through the magisterium of the
Church in such documents as Cantate Domino -ie that no non-Catholics can be
saved; reversed or vacated? For now, here is the one page position that
explains the canon of belief element of
the three pronged claim that RJM is
committed to presenting on judgment day.
I. How would/can/will/has anyone plead against “the box” when he/she
stands (has stood) before God?
II. The first question is what is “the box”? - to which is provided
the answer that: The “box” is
constituted of four positions which are
enumerated as follows:
a.)”Cantate Domino plus five” - Pope Eugene IV, Bull
“Cantate Domino” Council of Florence,
1441, ex cathedra: “The Sacrosanct Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and
proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only
pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schmismatics can become participants in
eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared
for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they
have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is
so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church
of benefit for salvation, and do (are)sic fasts, almsgiving, and other
functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier, productive of eternal
reward. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood
for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he abide within the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church.” (cf Mt 7:22, Jn 10:1, 1Cor 13:3).
There are five other
solemnly defined statements in which is conveyed the same position but
obviously only one would have been and would be & is, needed for the
issue to have been and to be, permanently resolved and formally acknowleged as
the position divinely established in perpetuity, in the sacred order of things.
b.)The Dogma of Papal Infallibility defined & solemnly
promulgated by the First Vatican Council; which renders the statement(s) included above forever binding. Either Cantate Domino et
al is (are) infallible & forever
binding, or God allowed a legitimate Pope to teach error Ex Cathedra, in which
case the promise made in Mt. 16:18 was broken, in which case there has never
been a True Church, & ultimately if
one reasoned the problem contained in this position to its ultimate conclusions, the principle of
non-contradiction has been contradicted & there is a contingent entity
which is an effect without a cause, neither of which conditions could ever
exist in reality.
c.)The position postulated
in the document of the First Vatican
Council known as: “The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith” Dei Filius,
Ch. 4, Canon 3, in which it is unequivocally acknowledged &
correspsondingly asserted, that: “The
faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a theory of philosophy,
to be elaborated upon by human understanding, but as a divine deposit to be faithfully
guarded and infallibly declared. Therefore, that sense of sacred dogmas is to be kept forever which
Holy Mother Church has once declared, and it must never be deviated from on the
specious pretext of a more profound
understanding. Let intelligence, and science, and wisdom increase, but only
according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same meaning. If anyone shall
have said that there may ever be attributed to the doctrines proposed by the
Church a sense which is different from the sense which the Church has once
understood and now understands: let him be anathema.”
d.)Council of Trent, Canons on Baptism: # 2. “If anyone
says that true and natural water is not necessary in baptism, and therefore
interprets metaphorically the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Spirit’ ( John 3:5) let him be anathema.”
#5. “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be
anathema.”
It is herein acknowledged
that both Saints Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori believed in the theory
of baptism of explicit desire for catechumens after the aforementioned canons
on baptism had already been solemnly proclaimed at the Council of Trent. In as much as the substantive issue
at stake (ie the necessity/non-necessity
of water baptism for salvation) in regard to which these saints were in
error, involved an issue of compliance/lack of compliance/non-compliance with a
requirement for salvation that could not
be known by the use of human
reason unaided by Divine Positive Revelation
(ie. that water baptism was/is indispensably necessary for salvation)
and not any matter involving a
transgression of a negative precept
of the natural law (which type
transgression would, for example, be present in any voluntary participation in
any & every religion other than the true, as distinct from the counterfeit,
Roman Catholic Religion) the errors of
these saints are neither
incompatible with their respective canonizations nor do they provide any
grounds upon which the positions of
which “the box” is constituted are brought into question. It can
evidently justifiably be presumed that had they received the explanations
of the positions of which “the box” is
constituted that are now available, that they would have accepted such explanations,
in as much as the explanations that are
now available preclude the continued adherence (or at least any rationally
grounded, logically tenable, continued adherence) to contrary and incompatible
positions.
III. How is anyone, when standing before the Judgment
Seat of Almightly God, going to be able
to “plead against the box?” On the other hand, how could anyone who out of acknowledgment of the impossibility of pleading against it, places and then keeps him/her self therein, end up in hell?
IV. There has been a one
thousand dollar reward available since 2/7/2000, for anyone who can refute this
position. Thus far, no one has been able to provide a legitimate (ie rationally grounded, logically tenable) explanation
which has brought into being the
development (ie. the attendance of R. More at a Novus Ordo “mass” - which
attendance would be entirely compatible
with his short term human interest as a
means of satisfying -arguendo, conjecturally on the reasoning of the RSVC - the requirements of the Third Commandment) which would
.accomplish the remission and corresponding obtention of the
collection, of it (ie the $1000. (Since “the box” is obviously the True
Catholic Faith, RJM will never return
to the Novus Ordo & thus no offense against God is thus present
in the provision of such type
“offer”).
RJM reasons that he is evidently left, on a practical level, with 4 possibilities after first
acknowledging the evident incompatibility of Br.Dimond's position with that of
JPII. That is, if there is a closed universe of possibilities (& how with a
necessarily internally consistent God can there not be?) then if Br Dimond's
position is called A, then JPII's position is not A, in other words it includes
necessarily all positions other than Br
Dimond's (unless RJM is missing a further clarifying distinction somewhere- T
Boyle said his own position is the one that excludes all others).
1. Accept & adopt Br Dimond's position & it turns out that
it is the answer to the problem of deliverance from the pains of hell in which
case a party adhering to it avoids hell (presuming he or she has no unrepented
mortal sins in his or her record of conduct).
2. Accept JPII's position & it turns out that it (which is
evidently mutually exclusive to #1 <RJM may not be able to grasp all
distinctions present>)is the answer to the same problem, in which case a
party adhering to it, avoids hell (based on the same presumption of #1 supra).
3. Accept Brother Dimond's position & find out he is wrong and
obtain deliverance on the logic of JPII's position that people of other
religions/invincibly ignorant/Baptism of Desire candidates et al get salvation
in those religions, etc, etc (presuming that such formulation is his postion -
& his numerous proclamations seem to indicate it is).
4. Accept JP II's position & find out it is wrong & that Bro
Dimond's is thus, by logical necessity, the correct one & go to hell for
all eternity.
Thus, the only rational
thing to do if RJM has not unknowingly oversimplified something or otherwise
missed something is to adopt Br.Dimond's position & cover both bases
recognizing that leaving the possibility that it might be wrong is not
acceptable, since it would be dishonest to not commit wholey to it but to hold
a rabbit’s foot type mentality which would in essence render one outside of the
protection evidently present in that position.
Upon further consideration
of the observations made by Mr. B
Harrison (& again w/ neither the presence of any disrespect nor the
witholding of any respect presumptively due, in regard to the utilization
of titles), RJM has found it necessary & appropriate to make
the following clarificaton to the statement of his present position in regard
to the problem of conditional salvation: For RJM, the formula ultimately is:
which amongst the competing positions, is, after all available competent
evidence is examined, the position which is evidently not incompatible with the
principle of non-contradiction? After
the research RJM has done to the extent RJM has researched the issues,
he apprehends that he is left without any evident choice at this juncture
except to remain in the position that he (Br. Dimond) had held in February of 2000,(based upon the
presumption that his translation(s) of
texts are based upon an acceptable translation of the Latin
originals).Not that anyone would ever wait w/ baited breath so to speak, for
RJM to make such a statement, but recognizing that the testimony of even a
person of the most modest intellectual capabilities who does not have access to all or even most of the
documents containing information relevant to the consideration of these issues
-ie a person such as RJM, could beneficially, or alternatively, deleteriously,
affect the prospects of someone else in regard to the obtention or loss of
eternal salvation; RJM finds it necessary to add this clarification. RJM
has publically committed himself to
acceptance of the positions Br. Dimond
had held in Feb. of 2000, & has still not found cause to change his
position in this regard, & he finds it necessary at this juncture to add
the crucial distinction that his commitment to those positions has been &
is based upon his not having assessed the translations of the Latin original version of the texts that Br. Dimond has utilized & upon which he has relied. It
would be one thing to lose one's own soul due to a lack of a sufficient
commitment to "adequately" research the issues involved, it would be
another & more serious, in obvious ways,issue,
to fail to demonstrate enough concern for the salvation of others, to refrain
from taking positions & making
public statements in regard to them that are not adequately researched or are
otherwise not presumptively credible positions. RJM presumes that this concern
to exercise what can be identified to constitute "due care" or
"a measure of care reasonable & therefore adequate & appropriate
according to the circumstances in which one finds him(her)self & in which
one finds it necessary to continue to operate, which necessity (ie that of
needing to continue to operate) is, of course,
universally characteristic of
the human condition" is
itself an effect of grace. Nonetheless, evidence that a person has operated
under the influence of grace, is still not proof that one possesses sanctifying
grace.
RJM’s adherence to the
positions which Br. Dimond had taken & publically professed {if Br. Dimond
& MHFM hold at this juncture (2/17/02), that someone can possess
sanctifying grace while being connected to JPII, then RJM no longer holds the
entirety of the positions that MHFM
holds, since RJM cannot see how these conditions could possibly co-exist} is in fact admittedly based upon the
presumption that the translation(s) of
the texts originally written in Latin which he has utilized are at least
"minimally acceptable", & therefore appropriate. This position of
RJM’s is considerably costly in human terms, especially in terms of the constraints & limitations which the
adherence to it imposes upon his choices in life. It is, as far as RJM can see,
a position in which there is no human (ie temporal) benefit in his remaining. A return by RJM to the RSVC would be much more advantageous
to him in terms of the temporal
benefits to be obtained in such a measure, but RJM still cannot see how it can
be claimed that the position that the RSVC is based upon & which is
transmitted through it, is something other than that of either universal
salvation or of "disparate treatment", both of which positions are incompatible with the
principle of non-contradiction. RJM hopes that Br. Michael & Brother Peter
Dimond will commit themselves to acquiring a knowledge of Latin that is equal
to that which Mr. Harrison evidently possesses, as RJM is commited to obtaining that measure of
knowledge himself, if he does not already possess it.
As RJM still has not found
in the position that Br. Dimond has taken, any evidently unreconcilable
conditions or component sub-positions, with only some unclarity regarding the
statements made by Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum & the professed support of
Baptism of Desire by St. Alphonsus & St. R. Bellarmine after the
promulgations of the Council of Trent, RJM cannot see how he could possibly
justify jettisoning that position for the RSVC position which appears to me to
be that of either universal salvation or a position in which God allows
similary situated parties to end up in different eternal dispositions (to which
position RJM has affixed the appellation "disparate treatment"),
which position would be entirely incompatible with God's benevolence &
mercy, & would render God to be the ultimate sadistic, despotic, tyrant.
Since God cannot convey information untruthfully, & Christ who is God &
who spoke as God in Mt. 25:45 when prophesying that at the Final Judgment, when addressing at least one human being that he
or she is going to hell, evidently for sins of omission; it cannot not be the
case that someone goes to hell. In the translation of Mt. 7:22 that RJM has,
the verbs are all employed in the future indicative conjugation, indicating
that even someone (& actually "many") who has (have)perform(ed)
works of evident benevolence end(s) up in hell. Which evidently humanly
benevolent heretic goes to heaven & which to hell according the position
of the RSVC?
RJM
Sincerely,
Robert J. More