Sheepishly Shy or Gaunt as a Goat?
Very, very recently this year (2020), a very, very nice person from
(Please comprehend, I mean no disrespect to this person, who is truly intelligent & earnest-sounding. I say this as more applicable to other readers than this person.)
In other words, is the last thing SEEN always the latest thing you WANT?
Jesus said, “…blessed are they who have not seen, and have believed.”
This quote is from John 20:29d-e DRC, i.e., a Catholic bible, emphases added.
The point? The Roman Catholic Faith is a RATIONAL faith, NOT a blind faith.
So when Jesus said to the doubting
That said, let’s get right into it. We sum the matter up --- we want to make this simple. No true Catholic denies the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. The question is over whether the form & matter of the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means (it’s an absolute necessity, no exceptions) or a necessity of precept (it’s not always necessary, it is possible for an exception to exist). And surprisingly, for a whole lot of people who go by the name of Catholic, the One True Church has never infallibly resolved the subject either ordinarily or extraordinarily --- yet. In doing so, we cite Baptismal Confusion, whether words or at least references --- we want to show you that everything was explained quite plainly & thoroughly in the book to start with, the issue examined historically, doctrinally, theologically, evidentially, minutely, logically & comprehensively. This is either sheepish confusion or goatish capering.
For Our Lord Jesus Christ said (the Roman Catholic Jesus, not any other):
“And all nations shall be gathered together before him [Jesus], and he [Jesus] shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth [separates] the sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand [these sheep are the ones Christ has chosen, favored & eternally blessed], but the goats on his left [these goats are the ones God has rejected, despised & eternally damned].” (Matthew 25:32-33 DRC, all emphasis & annotations added, both in this quote and any scriptural quote in the text.)
And Jesus’ Chosen Man, formerly wayward & obstinate
“For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are SCHISMS among you; and in part I believe it. [That is to say, I haven’t seen it or heard it with my own eyes & ears, yet I know you well… and what I hear is likely, being very believable.] For there must also be HERESIES: that they also, who are approved [by God & His Singular Roman Catholic Church], may be made manifest among you [God separates every goaty fake ‘catholic’ from a real sheep Catholic, allowing both goat & sheep to clothe themselves with the name of Catholic, He then letting their words & deeds distinguish them, with miracles where needed].” (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 DRC)
+++ 1. Aquinas Revisited +++
Thank you again for the recent phone conversation. Your words regarding King Jesus & Queen Mary brought tears to my eyes. I pray that They bless and enrich you mightily with Heaven’s Roman Catholicity here on earth as you live into the future.
By the way, I request you kindly that, if you can find time to read carefully other people’s commentary on these subjects, then please peruse this email just as carefully & fairly, going over things once more, as necessary, on The Epistemologic Works. Thanks!
X, you asked me to examine a site that thinks it is ‘defending’ St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the Immaculate Conception. When we talked via smartphone, I suspected I’d seen this site & page before. But I didn’t want to speak carelessly, finding out later that I was wrong, as well as looking very foolish in your sight and poisoning you against the correct position --- i.e., the TRUTH ABOUT THE SITUATION. So I kept my word, examining it yet again (you have to understand, I’ve studied these things in detail for nearly two decades, it now being unlikely that there’s something I’ve missed, or never considered before… that’s why I bothered writing a massive book about the Sacrament of Baptism and the controversy over ‘baptism of desire’ vs. ‘water only’, to help those who have never done adequate research, searching for the TRUTH OF THE SUBJECT.)
This site’s author acts like it’s akin to ‘slander’ saying Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. He or she couches his or her words by saying that, since Thomas never “considered” the “ninth” and correct stance (because eventually infallibly defined by Pope Pius IX), then he was never wrong about Mary’s Conception. This is splitting hairs and equivocation. It is also either ignorance or denial of Aquinas’ own words:
“‘If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory [disrespectful] to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved [did not need to be rescued from sin], the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract [get] original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception… But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract [get] original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth [that is, not at the point of Her Conception] from the womb… Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore [therefore] this is not to be entirely reprobated [disapproved]. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand [does not mean] that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception [in the 1200s, some local Catholic churches in various places in the world celebrated Mary’s Sanctification rather than Her Conception]… Sanctification is twofold. One is that of the whole nature… The other is personal sanctification. This is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not regard [concern] the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she [the Blessed Virgin Mary] contracted [got] original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence [desire of the body] and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says: “All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful.” [De Nup. et Concup. 1]’ (St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Book 3, Question 27, Article 2. All emphasis & annotations added.)”
Are you getting this, X?
It’s in his most famous work of all, the Summa Theologica, as quoted above.
And this, in turn, has long been in Baptismal Confusion, Part 2, Chapter 46.
Consequently, I did indeed address this squabble quite plainly, grappling the bull by the horns. But please don’t feel bad. I know you said you read the whole thing, yet it is a long & complex book. I didn’t hone in on it as we talked because I didn’t want to be mistaken, not remembering what I wrote correctly (when you’ve studied and written as much as I have, it’s easy to muddle something to a certain degree… even what your own self has composed!). Ergo, how much more do I cut you some slack, X. Yet please be honest.
St. Thomas Aquinas said what he said for all the world to see, and it’s mistaken.
The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived Immaculate, without Original Sin…
So why is the aforesaid author, site & page claiming Thomas wasn’t wrong?
It is either ignorance and the author is confused; or else arrogance and he or she a liar.
I would prefer to charitably believe it’s simply confusion. Hence, Baptismal Confusion. Therefore, why I dared to compose the book, make it as long & complex as it is, and why I went to the length of quoting Aquinas as carefully as I did. And hence why I went on to preface and then quote the eminent & scholarly Catholic Encyclopedia in the very same chapter, Chapter 46 (something you may check, seeing that it’s been posted for years):
“So we see that, although Thomas thought the Blessed Virgin Mary sanctified --- i.e., cleansed and made immaculate --- sometime before Her Birth, he did not think Her Immaculate from the moment of Her Conception. Yet if we’ve any doubts, the scholarly expertise of the Catholic Encyclopedia assures us about Thomas’ opinion against the Immaculate Conception:
“‘St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the
doctrine [of the Immaculate Conception] in his treatise on the
Book 1, Chapter 44, Question 1, Article 3], yet in his ‘Summa
Theologica’ he concluded [argued] against it… His great difficulty appears to have arisen
from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned.
This difficulty he raised in no fewer
than ten passages in his writings…” (Catholic Encyclopedia,
entry for the Immaculate Conception, section on the controversy surrounding
this teaching in the early second millennium, paragraph
four. Published by the Robert Appleton Co. of
Question, then --- how in the world could the aforementioned author, site & page go around insisting Aquinas never denied the Immaculate Conception? And the answer, if the author is merely ignorant --- because he or she hasn’t yet bothered to look carefully & closely at all of the evidence for the side that is against what he or she already wants to believe is true… and regardless of it not actually being true. It’s a common theme for humanity: that most of us believe whatever we want to believe and not what is actually the truth of the subject, our preference beforehand, or our determination to be thought ‘right’, all that really matters to us. To wit, the ‘truth’ is whatever we want to think.
And if that’s what someone wants, why trouble to look at the other side of things?
That is to say, at the side that dares to tell us that this someone is mistaken?
Perchance the author of the page about Thomas just hasn’t had time.
I hope so. On the other hand, I’ve dealt with a lot of CFs. A
So I’m a tad skeptical… yet hopeful if the author behaves rationally.
I only hope that you’re never a CF, X. You strike me as wanting the truth.
So have I. Proof of this is there to see --- The Epistemologic Works. While in what is now an outdated format (I had the rum luck to put it up just prior to domination of mobile platforms like smartphones or tablets; it’s a huge site; and I’m only one person with lots of other responsibilities), it is clean & navigable. Too, it’s surprisingly workable on a mobile platform, despite antiquated format. And Baptismal Confusion is proof I’ve examined the issue minutely over a 2000 year history, presenting both sides of the argument fairly, accurately & thoroughly. I’ve not yet found anything else like it.
Still, lest we forget our aim, what’s the crucial point about remembering the Angelic Doctor was mistaken about the Immaculate Conception? Is it simply to gloat over this saintly man and proudly tout our own correctness at his expense? I have found people, both Novus Ordoists and true Catholics, to be quick to judge like this continually. Again, I trust this is not your approach, X. You appear to be kindhearted. So, no; we have dared to note our dear & beloved St. Thomas’ inadvertent mistake about the Immaculate Conception only to solidly establish a logical, necessary and absolutely crucial fact:
That even a Church saint, father, doctor or clergy potentially can be erroneous.
(To claim to the contrary is itself logically erroneous. And possibly prideful.)
Which is NOT the same as to say that an erroneous saint or doctor is heretical (or else how are they a saint or doctor?), NOR the same as to say saints, fathers, doctors or clergy are mistaken all of the time, lots of the time, or even some of the time (that would be very reckless), NOR that real Roman Catholics should routinely doubt or question them over matters that are not yet infallibly defined or condemned (also a rather reckless approach).
And it’s NOT to say that the author and his page don’t have a valid point in observing how Aquinas himself laid the groundwork for later theologians to come to the correct opinion, an opinion adopted by learned Catholics everywhere as proximate to dogma in ensuing centuries, then raised to the level of truly infallible dogma --- beyond dispute --- with the definition of 1854 from Pius IX. Thus, this issue is NOT black or white. There is NUANCE to be found in study of the matter. And a nuanced study reveals, astonishingly for those who are unlearned, how Aquinas was both right and wrong at the same time.
He was partly on the right track, setting up logical parameters for later theologians (especially the Subtle Doctor, Bl. Duns Scotus, learned Franciscan monk & theologian) to properly settle the matter. Yet he was also partly on the wrong track before he died at the age of 50, not having himself yet arrived at the correct theological opinion, if ever that would have occurred. Howsoever, I’m sure Thomas Aquinas would have gladly acquiesced to the infallible definition, had he lived to see it come in 1854, but had nevertheless failed to figure it out on his own. Dear Aquinas was, after all, a saint.
Yet why go on about this, making such a to-do about Aquinas’ theological error?
It’s simply to clear up some seriously perilous confusion. Baptismal Confusion.
Consequently, as Baptismal Confusion quite rationally points out, if Thomas could be wrong about the Immaculate Conception… and he was!... then he could be wrong, too, about ‘baptism of desire’. As long as a pope has NOT infallibly & clearly defined or condemned the matter by name, then anyone in the Church could be mistaken about ‘baptism of desire’ vs. ‘water only’. ANYONE. This includes me, you, and others.
It includes a pope himself when he’s speaking fallibly; to wit, NOT infallibly.
Which brings us to the next thing you put forth concerning ‘baptism of desire’.
+++ 2. What’s the Point of Infallibility? +++
The person, X, with whom you corresponded, who claims Popes Pius XI & XII have ‘settled’ the matter. And yet they have not. If this person, with whom you corresponded, claims ‘baptism of desire’ is infallibly defined, then they are either ignorant of, or else purposefully ignoring, what the lengthy tome, Baptismal Confusion, makes plain in Chapters 1-22. He or she may also be ignorant of… or else purposefully ignoring… Chapters 22, 52 & 172, where it makes manifest, based on the infallibly defined explanation of papal infallibility, the Vatican Council of 1869-70 giving us 4 criteria to know IF such infallibility is truly operating. Not that I expect this soul to be familiar with Baptismal Confusion. Yet dare they to opine, or pontificate, about the matter, then they most certainly ought to know what is infallible and what is not, and how any Catholic determines what is infallible, as opposed to what is not. And were this is not the situation… well, then, why in the world trouble to say something is infallible?
Why not just say, “The pope says it’s so. Even if he’s wrong, believe it.”
What’s the point of raising a teaching to the level of infallibility, eh?
There is no point… unless it’s a matter of eternal life or death, and ergo there could not possibly ever be good enough reason to disagree or dispute in the matter. After all, prior to Pope Pius IX raising the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to infallible definition, Catholics did indeed disagree & dispute about the matter! The popes I told you about, in the 1600s, who forbade debate over Queen Mary’s Conception, merely outlawed public disagreement & dispute, not private disagreement or dispute altogether. And, whether wise to disagree or dispute the matter at all at this point in time --- when the prevailing theological opinion had firmly swung to the other side, the one upholding the correct & ultimately infallibly defined position --- no one was anathematized for merely holding privately to the opposite position until the definition of 1854. In other words, you as Catholic were NOT certainly anathematized (cursed to hell below) and thus damned, despite knowing a pope’s position, merely because you dared to privately disagree, wonder about, or otherwise ponder and dispute about the Immaculate Conception. Previous to 1854, you could debate publicly; then, later, privately ponder upon it.
Again… what is the point of distinguishing INFALLIBLE from FALLIBLE?
There is no point when it boils down to, “Even if His Holiness could be fallible & mistaken about a particular theological opinion, you have to believe it no matter what, lest you go to hell forever for refusing to agree with a particular theological opinion which --- you have most excellent, logical, sound & orthodox reasons to believe --- happens to be erroneous & mistaken. He’s the pope, that’s all that ever matters, notwithstanding how mistaken he might be in a particular non-infallible topic!”
Such a statement is NOT Catholic. It is an opinion masquerading as ‘doctrine’.
And it verges on papal idolatry, the idea Catholics must act like popes are ‘God’.
Or would such people claim a Catholic had to agree with a circa turn of the 14th century pope who both privately held, and publicly taught, the dominant yet incorrect theological opinion of the times, the one that denied that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate, and preserved from stain of Original Sin, from Her Conception? Would such people claim you were ‘sinfully disobedient’ for daring to politely & respectfully disagree… which is precisely the thing Duns Scotus did by disputing the then dominant view?
(Incidentally, the notion that someone like me, who once was Evangelic Protestant, would be prone to be ‘rebellious’ as a purported Catholic, is silly. I upended my life, risked my marriage, lost all of my former Protestant friends, alienated my family --- and for what? To be a ‘rebellious’ Catholic? Ludicrous! I could have stayed as I was and been as rebellious as I wanted without sacrificing a thing! This is armchair psychologizing and utterly groundless short of actually knowing the person, about whom you accuse of being ‘rebelliously’ Catholic. As a matter of fact, it amounts to the sin of detraction & slander. Were the person, making such a suggestion or allegation about former Protestants converted to Catholicism, to listen, I would advise him or her to refrain carefully.)
This is where it gets ridiculous. For IF the person with whom you corresponded, who apparently claims Pius XI & XII ‘settled’ the matter of ‘baptism of desire’ vs. ‘water only’, doesn’t claim this because this soul thinks Pius XI or XII infallibly defined, THEN they must, of logical necessity, be arguing that, “It doesn’t matter if the pope is fallible & mistaken in a particular theological view. You’re a vile rebel & sinner if you dare to politely, respectfully & intelligently disagree. Perhaps you’re not even Catholic!”
I have no idea what this person thinks is the thing Popes Pius XI & XII said that supposedly ‘settles’ the matter. And I don’t claim to know --- as I have very carefully made clear --- if this persons claims these popes were ‘infallible’ or not in doing so. But I can make a shrewd guess. It’s not unlikely this person claims Pius XI ‘settled’ it because a papal document of his, or Vatican Curial office under him issued a statement, that says something to the effect of upholding the ‘baptism of desire’ theological stance. And with Pius XII, it’s similar. It’s likely that this person would quote from XII’s Mystici corporis Christi, which he put forth in 1943; or his Vatican Curia’s slamming of Fr. Feeney in a ‘protocol letter’ put forth in 1949. Whichever, neither is an act of the Charism of Infallibility, and the latter isn’t even from the pope personally, thereby exercising delegated authority, not direct papal authority. Which doesn’t mean such things be dismissed lightly… it simply drives home further that this isn’t an infallible act. Or, potentially, this person would cite other documents of Pius XII. He was indubitably voluble, issuing more papal or curial documents than any true pope prior to him.
The point remains. This is an imperative issue. Roman Catholics of most ancient times, with Jesus & His Twelve Apostles, NEITHER knew, NOR taught, ‘baptism of desire’. They were solely, and naturally, proponents of ‘water only’. NOR has any pope or any pope’s council since then clearly, inarguably & decisively taught, with an infallible definition or condemnation, the theological stance of ‘baptism of desire’ as if now everlastingly beyond polite, respectful & intelligent disagreement or dispute.
Which then leads one to ask, intelligently:
What is their propulsive drive in this matter?
What makes them so testy, nasty and illogical?
Is it only fear about being ‘heretical’ or ‘disobedient’?
Well, that’s being sheepishly shy, not having studied & understood.
Or is it fear about being personally wrong, mistaken or erroneous about it?
Well, that’s being gaunt as a goat, stubbornly butting heads as if it’s ‘safe’ to do so.
For, as Baptismal Confusion makes clear, both unbending sides tend to fall into schism & heresy over this debate --- if, forsooth, many of them are really Roman Catholic to begin with. That’s why I wrote the book, X. It’s why I subtitled it as I did. It’s that deadly, condemning precious immortal souls to hell forever, or a painful purgatory. Both are celestially dangerous, schism being no less gravely sinful than the trespass of heresy.
Bringing me to a last brief comment. For your last kind communication quoted from someone who observes, essentially (yet I paraphrase liberally for sake of the point to be made), “Since Church leaders have overwhelmingly supported ‘baptism of desire’ in the past few hundred years --- and even if it’s never been infallibly defined --- isn’t it at least some degree of ‘disobedience’ to dare to politely, respectfully & intelligently disagree, perchance even ‘approximate to heresy’ to do so?” What I have made manifestly clear within the comprehensive Baptismal Confusion, and here in this smaller email, is very adequate rebuttal of the concern expressed. Yet again, such people seem to be never a whit concerned that there’s a very real distinction between fallible & infallible, that ‘baptism of desire’ has never achieved the level of infallible definition, and that it nowadays has many weighty, logical & factual arguments against it, the view of ‘baptism of desire’ having revealed itself as the means to bring salvation heresy, underneath guise of ‘dogma’, into the hearts and minds of ecclesial leaders.
Which is why we have the Great Apostasy raging all around us today.
Well, this is enough, my dear X. I risk tasking your patience. Should you want to talk personally again via phone, you are more than welcome to. Your civilized & charitable behavior would oblige me to do so, not to mention my very real concern for the salvation of your immortal soul. I trust that you are truly Catholic Whole, Entire & Undefiled. And if not (yet I don’t claim to know you’re not, I merely epistemologically, and cautiously, cover all bases out honesty & concern!), then I pray that you soon will be. Again, I presume you Catholic unless shown evidence to the contrary; I wish you the best.
+++ 3. A Last Charitable Yet Clarion Warning +++
A final word. If you’re a real Catholic and have no problem with ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ in its ancient, original, narrow, correct & unchanging sense, then you might already know this. Just in case, though, please be aware that the site of Y, while clean & relatively modern-looking in its design --- and the journalistic writing skills of Y are all impressive --- is NOT, because of this, in and of itself, sufficient to ‘prove’ a person’s religious orthodoxy or theological rightness of one’s opinions. The Twelve Apostles of Christ, most of them, lacked any scholarly training or academic titles. St. Peter himself, the original pope, was an unlearned fisherman, as Sacred Scripture says. So… whilst I happily give dues to a person’s study & degrees where appropriate (I myself am a university-degreed graduate), this all by itself never guarantees orthodoxy or truth.
I haven’t had time to investigate Y’s writings thoroughly. This would take me, at a minimum, many months since Y has written tons of stuff (like me…) and since I have endless duties, projects & responsibilities in my life. I am at a disadvantage here, when compared with a few others: writing alone, the father of a large family, and a huge job in order to support them, and so forth and so on. So I beg your understanding. However, Y uses the term ‘Feeneyite’, which is pejorative. Mind you, I have consciously striven to avoid most mention of him in my writings; this is because people get sucked up into emotional responses toward his supposed legacy, and nothing I uphold on my site is dependent upon him. The True Church of Catholicism either teaches something is infallibly true or She doesn’t; and Fr. Feeney either upheld this Truth or he didn’t.
My concern is this: is Y’s ‘Feeneyite’ slam done because of Y’s opposition to a mindless WO position (in contrast to a thoughtful & intelligent WO stance), or because Leonard Feeney dared to uphold ‘extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus’ in its ancient, original, narrow, correct & unchanging sense? If the former, then I can sympathize to some extent. If the latter, then, please, don’t get sucked into the salvation heresy of Novus Ordoism, whether it be of the liberal, conservative or traditional sort. Yet, then, if you’ve read Baptismal Confusion completely & thoroughly, then you already know my hard-as-rock position regarding this. And if Catholicism’s Salvation Dogma, in it’s ancient & strict no-exceptions form, seems ‘unbelievable’, please examine Helplessly Ignorant.
The proof for Catholicism Whole, Entire & Undefiled is there in spades.
As I’m fond of saying, Catholicism is a rational faith, NOT a blind faith.
By the way, don’t get waylaid with concerns about, for instance, the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaching, if only inferentially, about ‘baptism of desire’, etc. If you did indeed peruse Baptismal Confusion thoroughly, then you know I addressed those issues head on, not ducking them at all --- please re-read, or at least skim carefully, Baptismal Confusion to see that this is true and that these are issues I have already dealt with. Or, for example, the Michel de Bay controversies or tussles over ‘invincible ignorance’: these have all been addressed more than adequately in the Baptismal Confusion book. Please examine again the lengthy & complex tome if you haven’t yet understood… including Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, which, as we talked, I said was at Chapter 158.
Alright, X. I appreciate your input. You’ve been very gracious & civilized. Your recent story is remarkable… to the point of being inspirational. My family & I pray for you at least weekly, even daily. May the Immaculate Mother, the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary, wrap you tightly in the Folds of Her Tender Mantle. Dominus vobiscum. Ciao!
Feast of St. Patrick, 2020
[Webmaster’s note: This email is precisely as it was sent to the person in the south of the United States, with only minor adaptations, which are --- 1) the person’s name is redacted so as to give this person anonymity; 2) a tiny few personal words are edited out; 3) three divisional chapter titles are edited in; 4) the personal yet public information re the website mentioned, near the end, is excised; and 5) small typos corrected.]
Sadly, for all my alacrity, the poison of fake ‘catholic’ and Catholic fundamentalist teaching, under the guise of ‘official teaching’, had venomously infected this person’s mind. That, along with the poor soul’s propensity for the fault of scrupulosity, caused them to ‘avoid reading’ the letter I took the time to send them because the misled one feared being ‘misled’. (This is what the fake & fundamentalist claimed.) How’s that for irony? We’ve no shepherds right now --- they abandoned the sheep with the outbreak of the Great Apostasy, leaving sheep to wander astray as wolves haunt our footsteps --- and, faced with scrupulosity & confusion, with neither the fakes nor fundamentalists any more ‘official’ than me (read: they are certainly not clergy with any jurisdiction in the Church’s Hierarchy), chooses arbitrarily to believe the fakes & fundamentalists rather than little me. So how does this poor person know that he or she is NOT being misled by THEM? Hm? Now, I deserve such treatment for all my many sins. Yet is this logical? Rather, is it not a matter of fact & logic? Especially when, presently, no authority is around to solve the matter decisively! Precisely. One must listen, think & pray. This is the pickle we’re in. And, till Christ & Mary deign to act decisively, in a way no one can endlessly dispute, then, tediously, it will keep on happening. People will choose, demonically, to listen to all the wrong voices and, illogically, discard voices speaking the One True Faith, with evidence & rationality. All I can do --- all any real Catholic can do --- is speak the truth clearly, rationally, firmly & charitably. Remember, just because lately, during the Great Apostasy, we’re in dire straits (apocalyptically dire straits!) does NOT mean we’re off the hook. In fact, God’s Wrath makes it all the more fateful. Our stubborn refusal to ask, seek & knock with a prayerful humility and celestial confidence, condemns us to perpetually listen to the wrong voices, in order to scratch our diabolically-itching ears. And this kind of nonsense will continue until our punishment is finished. It is part of the hellish Spirit of Our Era. Yet the truth & wisdom upheld, however small the voice and contemptible the Catholic attempting to speak this truth & wisdom, serves God’s Purpose. No one is excusable… you could have listened humbly, earnestly & patiently, working it out so carefully!, when confronted by the testimony. Therefore, my beloved souls, I charge you --- listen well and consider prayerfully! Let us appease His Anger.
+ + +
NOTE: If the reader has enjoyed, or benefited from, this letter, you may wish to examine Baptismal Confusion: Dilemmas of ‘Desire’; or, It Is Foolish to Presume Either ‘BOD’ or ‘WO’, as of Yet in Our Era, to Be the ‘Inarguable’ Stance, Not Even Bothering to Honestly Study Each Sides’s Evidence! , in the Great Apostasy section. It also deals with similar dilemmas resulting from confusion, during the Great Apostasy, over the Sacrament of Holy Baptism after the Vatican II Pseudo-Council, resulting in acrimony, stupidity, cruelty, rashness, impatience, heresy & schism in the fight of BOD vs. WO.
+ + +
Pilate’s query met:
if you’ve come to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2020 by Paul Doughton.
All rights reserved.