Make your own free website on Tripod.com

 

Here is a challenge for anyone who might be interested & there is a corresponding book written in 1888 which entirely rebuts any argument that the Church JPII leads is the Church Christ founded – the book is in the endofman website, titled The Catholic Dogma by Muller.

From what RJM   has read thus far of the website "Matt 16:18",  & & Fr. Most’s attempts to reconcile the teachings of the religion JPII is leading with the Papal Bulls - Cantate Domino, & Ex Unum Sanctam, The Pertinent Parts of the Teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council on the Subject of the Identification of the True Church of the Faithful, & The Papal Encyclicals - Cum Ex Apostolatus, Mirari Vos, etc, etc, & with the gates of hell open, there is no way that RJM would commit to the positions Matt 16:18 & the RSVC have taken. It is indisputable that no  argument ever constructed in regard to something such as the basis & content of a religion, can be something on the most fundamental level other than a tautology. The "bottom-scraping" issue is to determine which amongst the alternatives posited to be the only true religion is not based on the utilization of  unacceptable definitions of words, &/or unjustified presumptions, &/or invalid premises & &/or logically fallacious reasoning processes. The number of  not-adequately defined terms in the  presentations RJM has examined (not to mention other unjustified liberties) constituting the Religion of the Second Vatican Council's ("RSVC"'s) purported position in regard to the requirements for salvation & purported reconciliation of the teaching of the RSVC with the content of the documents enumerated supra, certainly does not leave RJM willing to rely on the RSVC’s interpretation of those documents & in fact, RJM cannot understand how anyone could possibly claim that the RSVC's position is the actual legitimate position in regard to the requirments for eternal salvation. Anyone interested in endeavoring to refute the position RJM holds in regard to the issue of the requirments for eternal salvation is  welcome to compete for the $1000.00, offered as indicated infra.

RJM probably has every bit as much a carnal interest in taking the RSVC’s position  again, (which he held until 2/5/2000) as so many still do – the world certainly cannot logically hate anyone who holds it {those who continue to acknowledge the abominations of abortion, sodomy, pedophilia, genocide, and other abominations against the moral commandments do in fact incur a considerable measure of opposition and even hatred, but such opposition is in fact not logical if it is the case, which of course it cannot possibly be, that everyone is saved in the end anyway, which it certainly appears, is in fact, the position of the RSVC (though Fr. J.A. Hardon S.J. - the staunchest of defenders of Antipope JPII, insisted that at least one person has to end up in hell pursuant to Mt. 25:36)} – it is a path that is so much wider & easier than the one RJM is now on – which is evidently the only true path. The RSVC’s positions are a good distance (actually on the other side of a chasm) from those of St. Alphonsus, not to mention Eugene IV, etc. etc. Fr. Most commits the error he condemns in his strict reading-brinkmanship method in reading into Cantate Domino, words that were not explicitly included. The most evident meaning of  that proclamation is, without a doubt, limited to the words expressly included in it. The burden is on the party claiming that a contrary-to-face-value interpretation must or can be imputed to the plain-language meaning of "Cantate Domino et al" to explain why that, if such an interpretation is the legitimate interpretation of the documents enumerated infra, there are neither any definitions, or disclaimers nor document notes included in the promulgation of these documents, along with the documents as means by which they are to be interpreted.

Enclosed is the explication of one laymen's position in regard to the problem of conditional salvation. Herein contained is an explanation regarding RJM’s  position regarding the problem of conditional salvation. Anyone is  welcome to convey it to anyone. There is a $1000.00 reward as asserted in this document for anyone who could (the subjunctive mood is employed to convey a conjectural so that RJM does not incur any sin in this arrangement, which he apprehends he would incur were he to leave a voluntary doubt as to the truth of what he understands God to have revealed) refute the claims posited in this document.  There simply is no competent evidence that RJM has seen that supports the position that the Church (religion) that JPII is leading is the same Church (religion) that Christ established. 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, in which it is taught that persons dying outside the Catholic Church can be saved,  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.  M. Dimond O.S.B. claims is the true Catholic position RJM is now including it here.

Question - from what source of authority has the authority been conferred/derived according to which the dogmatic position disseminated and transmitted through the magisterium of the Catholic Church in such documents as Cantate Domino -ie that no non-Catholics can be saved; been 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 now 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 acknowledged 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 arrangements 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 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 is presumed that had they received the explanations of  the positions of which “the box” is constituted as are now available, that they would have accepted such explanations, in  as much as such explanations as are now available preclude the continued adherence (or at least any rationally grounded, logically tenable, continued adherence) to positions contrary to and incompatible with the positions of which the "box" is constituted.

III. How is  anyone, when standing before the Judgment Seat of  Almighty 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  RJM 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 . (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 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, which statement has never been substantiated in any way).

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 anyone who holds it avoids hell (at least if all other requirements of God’s law have been fulfilled).

2.    Accept JPII's position (arguendo, since no one could actually accept it without incurring the guilt of grave sin) & 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 RJM avoids hell.

3.    Accept Brother Dimond's position & find out he is wrong (again, arguendo, since the legitimate Catholic position cannot be 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 position - & 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 his 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 RJM’s 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 he has researched the issues, he is left without any evident choice at this juncture except to remain in the position that Br. Dimond has taken (based upon the presumption that his translation(s) of  texts are based upon an acceptable translation of the Latin originals. RJM does not hold that anyone possessing the use of reason, that is cognizant that the Novus Ordo is the ordinary worship service of the religion that JPII leads &/or who is not inculpably ignorant of the many heresies that JPII & the RSVC hold & disseminate could possibly believe that JPII is a true pope & possess sanctifying grace, so on this one point RJM disagrees with Br. Dimond to the extent RJM understands Br. Dimond's position on the issue. 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 beneficcially, or alternatively, deleteriously, affect the prospects of someone else in regard to the issue of  the obtention or loss of eternal salvation; RJM finds it necessary to add this clarification. RJM has publicly committed  himself to acceptance of  the positions Br. Dimond has taken (except the one that a person believing JPII is a true pope, could ever possess sanctifying grace unless he was inculpably ignorant of the performance of Novus Ordo masses & each & all of the heresies of the RSVC, which condition of inculpable ignorance would only exist in cases in which a given person would not have been exposed to any source of information by which he or she would have been informed of the sacrilege of the Novus Ordo & the heresies of the RSVC), & 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 many 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. Thus, RJM’s adherence to the positions which Br. Dimond has taken & publicly professed, & his commitments to the continued support of it & of  MHFM within the limitations of his means, while still in place, is in fact admittedly based upon the presumption that the translation(s) of  the texts originally written in Latin which Br. Dimond has utilized is at least "minimally acceptable" & therefore appropriate (RJM has discontinued  financially supporting MHFM since it took the position that a non-child could hold the position that JPII is a true pope & also possess sanctifying grace. The positions RJM now holds are considerably costly in human terms, especially in terms of  the constraints & limitations which the adherence to it imposes upon ones choices in life. It is, as far as RJM can see, a position in which there is no human (ie temporal) benefit in  anyone’s  remaining. A  returning to the RSVC would be much more advantageous to RJM 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 is  both hoping 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  committed to obtaining that measure of knowledge himself.

As RJM  still had not found in the position that Br. Dimond had taken, any evidently unreconcileable 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 (prior to MHFM taking the position that someone could believe JPII is a true pope & possess sanctifying grace), RJM cannot see how he could possibly justify jettisoning that position for the RSVC position which appears to him to be that of either universal salvation or a position in which God allows similarly 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. RJM is moved to inquire as to which apparently humanly benevolent heretic goes to heaven & which to hell according the position of  the RSVC?

RJM

Sincerely,

thirstforjustice@yahoo.com

http://www.geocities.com/thirstforjustice

 

 

 

 

1