Make your own free website on Tripod.com

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

 

1