+ + +
Please follow this link to see the Admonishments subsection.
Please scroll down for the alphabetical hyperlinked titles of all letters
posted (there are seventeen so far), along with individual summaries of the
contents of each one. For hyperlinked titles alone, please go here.
Dear reader, do you insist on calling yourself Catholic while acting like it doesn’t matter who you pray with or where you go to worship? Think it’s okay to be at a wedding when a Protestant minister officiates over the ceremony, leading the guests in prayers or songs and reading his bible or preaching a little sermon? Do you suppose it’s not important where you go to Mass, or to what priest you turn? Like to imagine that it’s the sacraments that matter --- God doesn’t care if the priest who’s administering them or the parishioners receiving them are openly & obstinately heretical about some point of Catholic dogma? After all, you’ve got to feed your soul… right? Wrong! The Catholic Church has never allowed Her members to mix religiously with those who deny Her dogmas notoriously & pertinaciously, and regardless of their apparent ‘catholicity’ otherwise. Indeed, the Catholic Church has never permitted Her children to mingle religiously with anyone who publicly professes a false creed. Catholics are to avoid these situations like the plague. We can be nice to people, we can often engage in business with them, we can even socialize to a certain extent where courtesy & custom demand it. But if they are not Catholic, then we are forbidden to take part in religious ceremonies with them or to pray in common at their gatherings. Don’t want to think so? Then take a look at what the Roman Catholic Church has said as recorded in this letter that I wrote to someone who wanted to know what to say to a family that expected him to join in at a function which was purportedly ‘catholic’. It’s just a few pages, and it can save your soul from an everlasting fate in the Fires of Hell below.
Someone briefly debated my wife on the Internet a few months ago, claiming to be Catholic and that the Catholic Church had never, ever, taught that only Catholics can go to Heaven. Where was the proof, said he, that we were right? Where is the hard evidence that the Catholic Church really does mean what She says when She declares that there is ‘no Salvation outside Her Sanctuary’? What pope or general council has laid down the infallible law that you have to a member of the Catholic Church to save your soul? Not having all of the documents memorized, my wife turned to me for help. The letter at this link --- and sent to the fellow last May --- is her answer. Want to call yourself Catholic, my dear reader? Yet don’t want to believe that a person has to be Catholic, and profess the Catholic Faith, in order to escape the threat of Hell? Then you had better knuckle down and read what is posted here. It’s not long, and it’s what the Church has said… infallibly.
Early in my conversion to the Catholic Faith, I became well-acquainted with a former co-worker. Naturally, the topic of Catholicism arose between us and he showed polite interest --- and, I fancy, a bit more than just polite interest --- in the subject. Nevertheless, and although he admitted many of the things I said were true, he would not seriously consider becoming a real Roman Catholic... leastwise, not openly in my sight. Why? Was there some fatal flaw in my facts, my reasoning or in the public testimony of the Catholic Church? Did he have ironclad evidence against the Church, or solid logic for not entering Her membership? Or was it merely prejudice, worldly desires & fear upon his part? This entry is actually two letters sent recently just a year or so apart. Find out how it is often the ‘little things’ that keep people from converting, things which really don’t matter from the eternal perspective, but which all too frequently seem so very important & insurmountable to us here on earth. And whether or not this is actually why he hasn’t yet penitently entered the Roman Catholic Sanctuary, do you, my dear soul, read this rather brief posting and take to heart the gentle but fateful warning that it contains!
Once in awhile someone has something nice to say to you. Which is nice. It leavens the monotony of unstinting criticism, and --- for someone such as myself, who is a terrible sinner --- it is a solace to the soul in the midst of earthly life’s many other miseries. The letter which drew this response is such a case. The person was very kind, and appreciated very much what The Epistemologic Works has to offer. In response to this kindness, I told the person a little bit about myself. In response to a pertinent & intelligent suggestion of how to make The Epistemologic Works a better website, I revealed why I designed it as I did, with hardly any pictures to be seen. And, in case this person hadn’t investigated the website far enough yet to know about the position of sedevacantism that I take (meaning, for those who don’t know, that I think the Throne of St. Peter is empty right now and that the men everyone thinks are popes cannot really be popes), I went into a short treatise about how the bishopric of Rome being empty explains a great many problems that we face today, religiously speaking, particularly if you’re Catholic. Curious about me, dear reader? Wonder why the website has almost no pictures? Can’t understand how someone would call himself Catholic but not accept as popes the men everyone insists are popes lately? The last topic alone is excellent reason to peruse this brief letter. Read on to find the answers to these questions!
The same person who wrote the letter to which I responded in the link above, wrote me again. Polite & friendly as always, she was nevertheless disturbed that I do not consider Benedict XVI --- the present reigning antipope in a series of recent antipapacies --- to be a real pope. Taking a low key approach, she strove to convince me that Benedict XVI is a ‘uniting pope’, someone who is gathering everybody under his ‘papal umbrella’… including so-called ‘traditionalists’. The catch is, replied I, someone who’s not truly Catholic can’t be the man you have described. He may gather lots of people together, but into what is he gathering them? The Catholic Church? Not if he’s a notorious heretic! And so I proceeded to demonstrate for her the rational necessity of sedevacantism to explain the crisis of apostasy from the Catholic Faith in which the world finds itself today, and exactly how we may know that Benedict XVI & other recent leaders of the post-Vatican II outfit are not what self-styled ‘catholics’ claim them to be, Successors to St. Peter. Have huge doubts about this claim, my dear reader? Or love to mock those who adhere to the sedevacantist thesis? Then this letter is for you. If you haven’t read the previous letter I sent to this person, then read it now (the link is right above this one). After that, peruse this letter. The two together go a long way toward showing that sedevacantism must be the explanation for the times we live in, and that both the Catholic Church and submission to a legitimate pope are absolutely necessary for the Hope of Salvation!
The threat of an ‘overpopulated’ earth and the necessity of ‘birth control’ are pretty routine nowadays. The so-called ‘Pill’ was unleashed upon the world in 1960, and the demand for ‘zero population growth’ sallied forth in 1968 at the hands of a famous professor, Paul Erlich. For the most part, the generation that came of age during that time bought into them hook, line & sinker. I know, because although I was only a very small child during the 1960s, their influence filtered into my mind as I grew up and I was committed to them wholeheartedly by the time I was in my twenties, attending university. The world, I thought, can’t handle any more. We human beings are a plague on the face of the planet. Or, so I believed. Then I started looking at it rationally. And became Catholic. And, well… oops …these ever-so-popular notions lost their stranglehold on my mind. They can for you, too. Find the prospect stunning or absurd? Then read on, my dear soul. It’s a brief little thing, a mere dainty for the reasoning, truth-seeking mind. Yet utterly crucial for beginning to think straight about the existence of human beings and our ability to procreate!
Recently a relative & I exchanged short letters concerning the pith of what separates us. Or, to be more precise, I pointed out to him what really divides us against each other, religiously speaking: infallibility. Not that I claim infallibility for myself, personally, or that he & another relative, being enemies of the Church of Rome, don’t claim infallibility for themselves --- they most certainly do act like they’re infallible about their spiritual beliefs & what the Bible says, even if they didn’t realize it before or aren’t willing to admit it now. No, I only openly claim that the Church to which I belong, being Roman Catholic and none other, is infallible. Whereas these relatives of mine tacitly claim (do so without actually saying so) that they themselves are infallible when it comes to interpreting the Bible in the things that truly matter to get right. Infallibility either way… but in complete opposition to one another. Ergo, we cannot both be right; we cannot both participate in the fruits of infallibility. So who is to be believed? Which side really is infallible, if either? Read this posting of two brief letters to find out. Every heretic (i.e., rebel who imagines he follows Christ while refusing to follow Christ’s Church) needs to understand it, and every infidel (viz., part of the rest of the world who supposes himself to be fine just as he is, without Christ & His Church) can only benefit from comprehending it.
For over a decade my extended family on the maternal side has been aware of my conversion to the Catholic Church. Nevertheless --- and including certain closer relations, who would visit routinely at first & then began attacking Catholicism with regularity every few months until a final showdown in 2007 (which you may learn about in my book, The Dogma of Baptism Upheld & the Lie of ‘Faith Alone’ Cast Down) --- not a one of them ever bothered to ask even a single question about why I did so. And this despite the fact that they disdain the Catholic Faith & had taught me to do the same since earliest childhood! You’d think they’d be at least a little bit curious to know my reasons for leaving their ‘born again christianity’ in opposition not only to their own bias, but in contradiction to the prejudices of the rest of the world, too. Occasionally through my wife (who took longer to convert than I and hence for awhile was viewed by them as someone they could ‘talk some sense to’) or through these closer relations (who in savaging the Catholic Faith via emails to me would make such disparaging remarks as follows) I would glean that they thought of my conversion as just one of my latest ‘phases’ or ‘weird ideas’ (I’d always been the ‘oddball’ in the clan). Yet, of course, the facts proved them wrong. That is to say, the evidence of history, scripture & reason itself upheld me. And, after eleven years, my own behavior was beyond reproach. To wit, a decade is more than enough time for me to have ‘come to my senses’ or ‘go on to the next phase’ if passing fancy & foolish dream was all that it amounted to… I thus issued a very simple challenge: take my conversion seriously. Excuses are no longer viable, nor were they ever. Investigate ‘The Epistemologic Works’ website, see for yourself how there is more than enough justification to save one’s soul by becoming a real Roman Catholic!
Over the past few years my wife tried to talk to a close relative about the Catholic Faith. And, of course, being a real Catholic, she mentioned the necessity of converting to the Catholic Church in order to have any hope of saving one’s soul. At first this person responded pleasantly. He even spoke to a religious leader about the subject. Unfortunately, this leader being an Evangelic Protestant heretic, the leader assured him that the only thing he needed to do was say ‘a sinner’s prayer’ in order to go to Heaven. Armed with this false assurance, the relative then tried to convince my wife she needn’t worry, that he was fine. After a long & busy silence, my wife sent the relative another email, politely requesting that they talk by phone again concerning the Religion of Rome. This time he was stand-offish, almost testy. ‘Don’t preach at me’ was pretty much his line. How to respond? Her feelings were too deeply involved, so I stepped in and composed a response with her approval of the text as accurately representing her thoughts & convictions in the matter. We couldn’t very well excoriate the poor fellow since communication about the subject had been limited & he had never claimed to be Catholic or anything like that; on the other hand, if we didn’t squish this ‘anti-conversion’ stance of his (a prejudice very popular nowadays amongst people) and reveal it to be irrational, then how could we expect the door of his mind to be open to anything else in the future regarding Catholicism? We therefore took the middle road: firm & admonishing, but leaving the door wide open for further communication should he back off from his illogical view. Which is why I say to you, my dear reader, to take a good look at this letter. It isn’t very long, and bears close examination. People today love to accuse real Catholics of being ‘narrow-minded’ or ‘intolerant’, when in fact --- and as you will see from this email --- it is the other way around… they are the ones being extremely intolerant & narrow-minded against the Faith of Roman Catholicism!
A gentleman wrote me in the last few months saying that he’d looked at The Epistemologic Works and thought I believed correctly about several things concerning the Catholic Faith. However, there were some things he couldn’t find mentioned. He thus asked me a series of eighteen questions. The email I sent back to him eventually is the text of this letter. It delves into the reign of Pius XII, canonizations & infallibility, getting the sacraments from a heretical priest, attending the services of a false religion, the message of Our Lady of La Salette, so-called ‘Natural Family Planning’ (NFP) & the ‘Rhythm Method’, what is permissible and what is not permissible in intimate marital relations (and why), the fate of unbaptized babies and whether or not they suffer the punishment of fire, Jews & the guilt of deicide, the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptress, the creation of the world in six days, Adam’s origin from the dust of the earth and Eve’s origin from the rib of Adam, and Copernicanism (or Heliocentrism, or Acentricism) vs. Geocentrism (or Geocentricity, or Tychonian Geocentrism). A lot of stuff, but it’s not too long, just a few pages, and well worth reading to find out what positions I take on these things… not to mention that many of the topics are of a vital dogmatic or moral nature!
For a month someone sent me anonymous emails meant to support the heresy of ‘faith alone’ and crucify the Catholic Religion for so-called ‘crimes’ against purported ‘christians’, Jews & others who opposed the Roman Church. The first two emails were merely a listing of passages from the Bible that mention the importance of ‘faith’ without also mentioning the need for ‘works’ & ‘obedience’. The last email was a tallying of many ‘atrocities’ purportedly committed by Roman Catholics against the adherents of opposing religions. In either case, the arguments are easily rebutted. It was simply a matter of finding time to write a refutation, which also involved adding two new questions & answers to the already very long entry, Roman Catholic Church, in the Q&A section of the website. It was, in fact, a recent lengthy addition to the end of this entry concerning the so-called ‘crimes’ of the Catholic Church that led to the anonymous author’s third email attack. Apparently, the defense I had made there of Catholics in general and Catholicism in specific against such charges incensed the person. It was then this person’s bounden duty to ‘shame’ me with a tally of alleged atrocities. Impossible to answer? Not really. The person clearly had either not read carefully & understood fully what I said in the addition already posted, or else purposely ignored what I said, regardless. Whichever, the letter repels these attacks without difficulty, along the way skewering the lie of ‘scripture alone’, annihilating the heresy of ‘faith alone’, and decimating the idea that the Catholic Church is somehow ‘guilty’ of murdering & abusing tons of people, or ever officially condoned mindless riots & rampages against non-Catholics as something ‘good’ & ‘acceptable’.
Having looked at this website, someone closely related to me sent me an email. While not an ‘instant conversion’ (a thing rarely heard of since people totally unfamiliar with the Catholic Faith must normally have a lot of time to overcome extensive ignorance of, and any wicked notions & passions that they may bear toward, the teachings, practices & history of the Catholic Church), the tenor of the letter was remarkably humble. Making several suggestions, asking a few queries and wishing to know my thoughts, I wrote this document in response. One of the person’s biggest concerns was that the writings on the website are just too difficult to understand for anyone not already knowledgeable with Catholicism. A very respectfully-voiced & humbly-opined sentiment with which I can agree! The problem is, to whom do I write first? The man without any background in the matter, or the man who is at least a little acquainted with the topic already? I’ve taken the latter option for now, knowing how unlikely it is (humanly speaking) that most people will even glance at the things I’ve written regardless of what I do. Why not, then, focus on the very few who are inclined to look carefully? Not that I want to ignore the rest. As I also point out, simpler writings are on the way. But it’s going to take some time until they’re ready. A link in the navigation bar at the left called ‘Straight & Simple’ is beginning to perform just such a task at this very moment. Meanwhile, take a peek at this email. A name and other information have been deleted to protect the person’s privacy, as well as the date of composition added and a handful of typos corrected to read more smoothly. Apart from this, the letter is exactly as I wrote it originally.
A couple of months ago someone anonymous sent me an email asking what parish I attended. Not having a parish to attend since there are no real Catholic priests & no real Catholic laymen within our local area, I had to briefly tell this person the sad, and even shocking, reality. Thus far I have never heard back from him. Which isn’t surprising, because, aside from most people nowadays wanting nothing to do with God’s One True Religion of Roman Catholicism, those who call themselves ‘catholic’ are not truly so, poisoning their beliefs with teachings that are in direct & explicit contradiction to what the Church has always taught or has always meant by what She has constantly professed. Thus, the times are utterly confusing and few, if any, have the tenacity or the courage to buck the tide. The simple truth is this, though, dear reader: you cannot be Catholic and espouse anything that is contrary to the perpetually unchanging dogmas of the Catholic Church. Nor can you be truly Catholic and religiously worship --- or religiously associate in any way at all --- with those who are not truly Catholic, not even those who call themselves ‘catholic’ and may appear to be impressively ‘traditional’ or ‘conservative’. Ergo, you cannot knowingly & rightly attend their Masses or receive their Sacraments or pray in union with them, etc., etc., without denying the Catholic Faith publicly and breaking the first three of God’s Ten Commandments. But read this relatively short letter and its long introductory note to find out more. I hope to very soon post something substantial in the section of the website entitled The Great Apostasy, explaining our situation today in adequate detail. Until then, this will do to acquaint the good-willed man with the necessary facts.
A lot of people who consider themselves Catholic think that ‘Co-Redemptress’ is a forbidden title for the Blessed Virgin Mary. They claim to base themselves on the infallible teaching of the Magisterium, too. Are they correct? The short answer is very simple --- no! Their ‘proof texts’ are insufficient, the Magisterium having never addressed the issue specifically; their logic is deficient, not thinking straight about the number of souls necessarily involved with Jesus in His Body, the Catholic Church, to effect His Redemption in the visible world here below both before, during & after His Crucifixion; and either their knowledge is lacking or their attitude is arrogant about those Catholics who have used this term for five hundred years now without censure or suppression, including the Holy See itself by the turn of the 20th century. Don’t want to think so, my dear reader? Then examine this post very carefully. The hard evidence & solid reasoning are there for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear… not to mention a mind to understand. Use that mind by looking humbly at the side of things which upholds Mary as Co-Redemptress, She Who crushes the Serpent’s Head like no other that God has created!
· Unity of Worship Addendum: How the 1917 Code of Canon Law Simply Is Not, However Someone May Want to Think Otherwise, Any Act of ‘Infallibility’, the Truly Infallible Definition of Papal Infallibility at the Vatican Council of the 1800s Proving This
This is a very short supplement to the letter now just following this one, in alphabetical title order, to the same thoughtful & kind gentleman for whom I wrote that email or ‘letter’. Why one more thing? Because, with courtesy & clemency, he was still insisting Pope Benedict XV (XV, not XVI --- we’re talking the early 20th century here!) acted ‘infallibly’ in promulgating the 1917 Code of Canon Law (also known as the ‘Pio-Benedictine Code’) and this thus also made the 1917 Code ‘infallible’ too. Believable? Actually not. Read the very short letter to understand why. In summation, however, Pope Pius IX via the Vatican Council of 1869-70 gave us a quartet, harmoniously, of four infallible criteria, which, as an adequately intelligent & real Roman Catholic, we can know for sure when a pope is acting & speaking infallibly, and when any Petrine successor (pope) is not acting & speaking infallibly. And guess what? These criteria reveal Pope Benedict XV to have not been invoking his Charism of Infallibility when issuing Latin Rite Canon Law --- the aforementioned 1917 Code --- and, were that not enough, Pio-Benedictine Code (1917 Code of Canon Law) fails to meet each & every single one of those infallible criteria given to us as true Catholics at the Vatican Council. Scandalizing? No, indubitably not. Canon law is for governing & discipline, NOT for defining dogma or for infallibly teaching members of the Catholic Church, of whatever rite. Popes can change or update canon law for various parts (rites) in the world from time to time. And real Catholics may, intelligently & respectfully, find a bad canon law, and, with moral certainty knowing it’s bad or foolish, intelligently & respectfully refuse to obey it. Get it? Real Roman Catholics are called to rational obedience, NOT blind obedience. It’s simple moral theology for millennia.
Just a month ago we posted a relatively short article called Unity of Worship in the Books & Articles section of The Epistemologic Works. Then, as luck --- or fate --- would have it, a thus far very kind gentleman in the United States wrote a somewhat lengthy email to someone very, very close to me in my family, saying the 1917 Code of Canon Law ‘justifies’ real Catholics in asking automatically excommunicated priests (read: valid priests, men who really do have the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but who are ‘illicit’, i.e., illegal, since they aren’t really Catholic since they DON’T profess the Roman Catholic Religion Whole, Entire & Undefiled and their lack of a real Catholicity is notorious & pertinacious, i.e., undeniably open & factual for anyone to see publicly in the external forum) for the Sacraments. At all believable? Yes and no. Yes, the 1917 Code truly does say this --- that Catholics can ask for the Sacraments from automatically excommunicated priests when in ‘desperate need’. Yet, no, this is an innovation of modern times. No body of canon law in the second millennium has been an act of papal infallibility, ergo, a body of canon law is NOT ever guaranteed to be ‘never wrong’. Ergo, there could be BAD LAWS mixed in with perfectly fine laws in a body of canon law. This could result from a bad pope doing this on purpose, or a careless pope doing this foolishly, or an overwhelmed or unknowledgeable pope depending upon experts to craft the body of canon law properly. In any case, are real Catholics ever ‘justified’ in knowingly obeying a wicked law or command? NEVER. We are to practice a perfectly rational obedience, NOT an imperfectly (and foolish!) blind obedience. God does actually punish us or test us, depriving Catholics of clergy and most of the Sacraments, we, resultantly, then having to learn how to endure spiritual famine and save our souls despite lacking what we should normally --- and do normally --- have. Hate acknowledging this necessary truth, my dear & precious soul? Then summon up humility & please read it.
Ever wonder why some people are so passionate about the metric system? It’s practically a crusade for them, like a religious faith. What’s the big deal, anyway? Is it really only because it’s so very ‘efficient’? (And rather boringly so, one might add.) Or could the fact that its supporters constantly refer to American isolation from the rest of a ‘metricized’ world be the real reason that they get so up in arms over the subject? Just what in the world is the burr in their saddle that bores so painfully into their metaphorical hind regions? Why must the entire earth agree with them or else suffer their intellectual scorn? Whatever happened to the rainbow of ‘diversity’ as opposed to a slavish ‘conformity’? Are not nations allowed to do as they wish when it comes to measuring within their own borders? And if metric one day rules the globe without exception, banishing all other forms of measurement to oblivion… well, what’s next? A universal language that outlaws the use of any other language everywhere on the earth? After all --- that would be more ‘efficient’, wouldn’t it? Take a look here, my dear readers, at this very brief entry to find out what makes metric zealots so intolerant!
+ + +
Please click here to see the Admonishments subsection.
+ + +
Pilate’s query met:
if you have 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.
© 2019 by Paul Doughton.
All rights reserved.