immaculata-one.com | Mike Bizzaro & Victoria DePalma's Bizarre Heresies, Beliefs and Practices Exposed

immaculata-one.com is a heretical and schismatical website run by Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma. They both claim to be traditional Catholics and sedevacantists, rejecting the Vatican II antipopes and the Vatican II sect, in addition to rejecting Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII as antipopes.

Their principle belief centers around the concept that no person can ever be a material heretic; in other words, they believe that every dogma without exception of the Catholic Church must be known by all, or salvation of the soul is impossible and they explicitly denies the existence of material heresy (that a person can be honestly mistaken in his beliefs about a dogma). They propose, then, that the virtue of Faith means that a person is actively and consciously aware of every single dogma of the Catholic Faith, and that if he is not, then he doesn’t really possess the virtue of Faith.

Mike Bizzaro & Victoria DePalma are very active on youtube and over the internet, principally by sending people emails with their confused doctrines. They are, unfortunately, bad willed heretics that refuse to listen to reason. They are also incredible liars and dishonest to the core, as will be shown in this article.

Common email sent by Mike Bizzaro & Victoria DePalma

All -

Are you currently being sent into Hell forever ... automatically excommunicated (outside) of God’s Catholic Church ?

Answer: Yes you are ... but you can reverse ... the pending loss of your soul.

Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- infallible Source of Dogma >

"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person
keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

Vatican Council of 1870, Session 2, Pope Pius IX -- infallible Source of Dogma >

"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath."

You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church ... Dogma you have *never* seen.

You have been ... and are profoundly deceived ...

[...]

Mike
Our Lady of Conquest
Pray for us

To make matters worse, Mike does not even stop there, but he claims that those who have not come to know ALL dogmas, even if they hold no false opinion whatsoever, are heretics and cannot be saved.

Here is a screenshot of his website, proving that he believes this:

Why is it then, Mike, that the Church baptizes catechumens before they learn all that the Church teaches about the sacraments?

And now he has recently made an addition to his website that actually proves our point!

Mike has evidently failed to understand that Pope Benedict XIV, in Cum Religiosi made a clear distinction between all the mysteries of Faith and “those matters which must be known by necessity of means”.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (On Catechesis), 1754, #1, 4: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even of those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently, they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments. [...] school-masters and mistresses should teach Christian doctrine; that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved;”

It is obvious that Pope Benedict was saying that not all ignorance of the Mysteries of Faith is harmful for the soul, but only an ignorance of those matters which must be known by necessity of means. That’s right, these people were ignorant of those Mysteries of Faith – and not just any Mysteries of Faith – EVEN THOSE SPECIFIC ONES that you cannot be saved without and that are absolutely necessary to know about in order to be saved, such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation! (More on this later.) How much more clear can it be?

To further prove the utter stupidity of this doctrine of immaculata-one.com, consider that according to their heresy, every single Pope or Saint who ever held a material heresy without renouncing it must be accounted a real heretic and damned, which would make many true saints and popes heretics and damned according to immaculata-one.com, Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma. Since St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and St. Alphonsus Ligori (among many others) taught material heresy such as baptism of desire, this would mean, according to Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma’s absurd and heretical position, that these great saints are actually heretics and in hell!

Indeed, if Mike Bizzaros bizarre and ludicrous heresy was really true (which it is not), we would be forced to regard all (Saints as well as Popes) who held material heresies without retracting them as true heretics and damned since the Church judges things in the external forum.

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 9, no. 15.: “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

So, even though the Bizzaros are clearly wrong and teaching heresy, the result of this novel and heretical teaching of the Bizzaros for those have been deluded by it, is that they now logically cannot pray to a Saint if the Saint ever have taught a material heresy without retracting it, and they also cannot regard a person a Pope if he during his life taught a material heresy without retracting it. And this is not even mentioning that they must regard them all as heretics and damned, if their heresy were true, (which it is not) since a Catholic is not allowed to judge things in any other way than what is presented in the external forum.

These quotations above of course speaks about a person who manifests obstinacy in heresy in the external forum since Pope Clement VI, in Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351, teaches that people: “are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., in schism!] from the faith of this Roman Church.” Obstinacy is thus needed for a person to become a heretic, which means that people can be innocently unaware of the fact that what they believe is wrong, and thus be a “material heretic” until the true teaching have been shown to them.

Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

When I sent them the above arguments, this was their response:

Ville -

It looks like you missed ... what I have on Section 3.1 and Section 104 of the site.

(...)

If someone who is designated as a Saint ... somehow has heresy against infallible Dogma in his

writings (such as heresy against the Water Baptism Dogma) ... there are three possibilities ...

Possibility 1 ... The Saint never wrote the heresy.

Possibility 2 ... The Saint did write the heresy ... and then Abjured (rejected) his heresy at a later date.

Possibility 3 ... The Saint did write the heresy ... and died believing the heresy.

If ... Possibility 3 is in fact the truth ... the person who was designated as a Saint is in Hell forever.

(...)

Mike

Pope Clement VI, however, directly refutes this delusion by this Bizzare sect in the following statement, teaching very clearly that it is not a mere error in one’s faith that makes a person a heretic, but that they must be obstinate in their heresy for them to be called heretics:

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., in schism!] from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: “For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all.”

In fact, if one thinks about it, the novel idea and heresy of the Bizarros (that is, Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma that promotes immaculata-one.com) would mean that every baptized child on reaching the age of reason – at that precise moment – would have to know every single dogma of the church in order to be saved. If that doesn’t sound ridiculous, I don’t know what does. The fact that not even a single Pope or Saint have taught the Bizarros’ heresy, but that even many popes and saints have taught exactly against their heresy, and that people must be obstinate in order to become heretics, does not seem to move these heretics one bit, sad to say.

Most children probably reach the age of reason at about the age of 4-5 of age years if not sooner for some children, and this is about the time when they understand the concept of wrongdoing and are able to obey and follow the Natural Law. But if the idiotic Bizzaros were right, these small children would have to know every single dogma of the Church at the very moment in time when they reached the age of reason, which can be more than a thousand dogmas, and perhaps even more, that deal with enormously hard to understand theological concepts that even some grown ups have trouble understanding, and if these small children did not know every single dogma of the Church from all councils and papal dogmatic encyclicals or bulls etc., they would be damned according to the bizarre teaching of the Bizzaros. The bad will and darkness of the soul of a person who fall for this heresy of the Bizzaros which not even a single Pope or saint ever taught, is truly immeasurable and pitiful.

If the Bizzaros were right, (which they clearly are not as we have proved), one would literally have to conclude that Mike Bizzaro have been sent by God to “restore” the true gospel and true teaching about what dogma is, and that he was “sent” by God after the Church have existed for 2000 years, as a special and holy missionary, in order to correct the Church’s Popes, Saints, Fathers and theologians that have all taught against this novel theory.

If his approach sounds protestant, that’s because it is. It was Pope Pius IX himself that said: “… every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.” (Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873) This is a perfect description of Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma and the schismatic sect which they have created. All heretics fool themselves in their pride into thinking that they are special and wise and that they have come upon the “true” meaning of the dogmas, scripture or apostolic tradition that no one but themselves understand or taught; and not uncommonly, heretics like the Bizzaros will also make up a new teaching or heresy out of thin air which not even a single Pope or saint ever taught. Sad to say, but the fact that they cannot cite a single Pope or saint to ever have taught their heresy, does not seem to worry these bad willed heretics one bit, as any person of good will would be very worried immediately when he realized this fact.

Indeed, to further show that Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma that promotes immaculata-one.com are totally wrong, consider the following example: In the beginning of the Church, communications between countries was really bad, and when a dogma was declared from the Chair of Peter, it could take literally years, or even more for these dogmas to come to people’s knowledge. But if the Bizzaro sect was right, at the very moment and time when a dogma was pronounced from the Chair of St. Peter, all Catholics would have to know it, and if they didn’t they would have been damned.

In addition, almost all dogmas that we now have was proclaimed from about the year 300 A.D. and onwards, but if the Bizarros was right, a person living in the first century A.D. would have to know either 1) a lot less than a person living in our times, or 2) would have to have learned all the dogmas of the faith supernaturally (by miraculous inspiration) in order to possess the “fullness of the faith” as the Bizzarros understand it; because with time the dogmas proclaimed from the Chair has increased the total amount of the dogmas.

Here is another email I sent to Victoria DePamla on February 22, 2015 after Mike Bizarro didn’t answer my questions.

Hi,

I am emailing you the following information that your partner in belief refused to give an answer on.

We do strongly believe that if you consider these questions and answers them honestly that you will see the error of your position.

I personally asked mike4dogma (or Mike Bizzaro) these questions, but not so strangely, he never responded, even though he wrote to me just previously asking me some questions that I answered.

I have no problem answering your questions, but can the same be said of you? Mike Bizzaro certainly does not answer questions that refute your beliefs.

Please, consider the following questions and corresponding article:

[taken from the email sent to Slave_BVM@mail.com on 2015-01-28]

[Mike,] Since you ask me many questions, I will ask you some questions now:

1. In your opinion, does a converted pagan at his deathbed go to Hell if he did not get the immaculate conception explained to him, even though he was properly baptized and believed in the trinity and incarnation and had contrition?

2. Is the immaculate conception absolutely necessary for salvation without excuse for ignorance without exception, according to you?

3. Since not all dogmas was known by all people throughout all ages, when or how did people get saved before these dogmas were dogmatized and made known?

4. Could people be ignorant of a dogma and be saved before it become dogmatized but not after?

5. And when it become dogmatized, how many hours, days or months afterwards was it necessary by necessity of means to believe in it [and understand it in order] to be saved? (This is an important question, because before modern technology it could take months or years for news to spread around the world).

6. If a person lived in the first century A.D., would it be enough for him to be baptized and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Trinity to be Saved, but not for a person living today (provided he do not deny or obstinately reject anything he is aware of that the Church teaches).

7. Note: Do not use the straw-man argument of being ignorant of immorality. Both you and Vicky has resorted to this false argument before when talking with me over youtube. We agree that no one can be ignorant of the natural law and be saved, but that is not what we are talking about here. Therefore, stick to the point. We are talking about a person holding the natural law (morality) but that does not necessarily understand every other aspect of the Faith, such as the immaculate conception.

I will be awaiting your responses. We believe these responses [or questions] will make you consider the absurdity of your position.

P.S. Also check out this new article. It was written in charity in order to help you and your followers:

http://www.allmonks.com/immaculata-one.com/

Signed,

Hietanen, Ville

[P.S. I really hope to here back from you Vicky!]

Here is a follow up email I sent Mike on 2015-02-05:

Hi. I just wondered if you received my answers and hope that you will also answer our questions.

We do strongly believe that if you consider the questions and answer them that you will see the error of your position.

Perhaps you haven't thought of the consequences of your position as much as you should have done. But that is only your own fault.

We hope you do not ignore us or avoid answering our question, since that would only show that you have no courage to even stand up to your own beliefs. But it would be equally sad to see someone give false [and] illogical answers to the questions given just so as to continue deceive himself.

John 3:21 "But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God."

We  can only pray and hope that they will see their errors and be converted.

On Material Heresy and Saints Augustine and Thomas

There is an erroneous opinion that needs to be dealt with, namely that material heresy is only when a person believes a dogma, yet accidentally misstates it, uttering something heretical by mistake (slip of the tongue/pen). While the qualification of material heresy may well be employed in this type of situation, it certainly cannot be restricted to it.

Material heresy also signifies an intellectual belief in a proposition, which has either been condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church, or is contrary to a dogma of the Catholic Faith, but it lacks formality when the person has not actually been presented with the Church’s teaching on the matter, and has no will to oppose Holy Mother Church. It is the will to oppose the Church (being obstinate) that makes a person a formal heretic, or at least the lack of diligence in determining the truth of the matter when it becomes clear that this is necessary. A person who either willfully opposes the Church, obstinately doubts, or is simply indifferent to what the Church really teaches is a formal heretic.

Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

In the opinion of Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas people are not guilty of any deliberate resistance or disobedience to the dogma, until they are presented with the truth and only then retain their heretical opinion. It could also be added that if they are offered the opportunity to examine the evidence that their belief is wrong, and they refuse to do so, then such a person is vincibly (or willingly) culpable and is recognized to be a formal heretic. Thus the matter required in formal heresy is the heretical belief itself and the form required is the resolution of will to hold (or obstinately doubt) a belief in opposition to the Church.

St. Augustine (Patrologia Latina 33, epistle 43, #160): “Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal, especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 2, Art. 6, Reply to Obj. 2: “Simple persons should not be put to the test about subtle questions of faith, unless they be suspected of having been corrupted by heretics, who are wont to corrupt the faith of simple people in such questions. If, however, it is found that they are free from obstinacy in their heterodox sentiments, and that it is due to their simplicity, it is no fault of theirs.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Pars, Q. 76, Art. 2: “Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: Wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.”

Does this mean that a person can believe (or fail to know and believe) absolutely anything at all and still be in the way of salvation? Absolutely not! Among the dogmas of the Faith, there are certain ones known as necessary or essential dogmas, that is, dogmas in which explicit belief is absolutely necessary for salvation. This is called, in theological terminology, necessity of means.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (On Catechesis), 1754, #1, 4: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even of those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently, they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments. [...] school-masters and mistresses should teach Christian doctrine; that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved;”

The Trinity and the Incarnation have been declared as necessary dogmas; the dogmas of the Natural Law are also declared as necessary (i.e., no immorality, no murder etc.). This definition consists of “the Catholic Faith, whole and undefiled”.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.

“But the Catholic faith is this, that we venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit; but the divine nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty is coeternal.

“Of such a nature as the Father is, so is the Son, so also is the Holy Spirit; the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated; the Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, and the Holy Spirit is infinite; the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal; and nevertheless there are not three eternals but one eternal; just as there are not three uncreated beings, nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated, and one infinite; similarly the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty; and yet there are not three almightys but one almighty; thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and nevertheless there are not three gods, but there is one God; so the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three lords, but there is one Lord; because just as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess singly each one person as God, and also Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there are three gods or three Lords.

“The Father was not made, nor created, nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

“There is, therefore, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits; and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be venerated. Therefore, let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believes also the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Accordingly, it is the right faith, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and He is man born of the substance of His mother in time: perfect God, perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and a human body, equal to the Father according to His Godhead, less than the Father according to humanity.

“Although he is God and man, yet He is not two, but He is one Christ; one however, not by the conversion of the Divinity into a human body, but by the assumption of humanity in the Godhead; one absolutely not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For just as the rational soul and body are one man, so God and man are one Christ.

“He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, on the third day arose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; at His coming all men have to arise again with their bodies and will render an account of their own deeds: and those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire.

This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. Amen.”

A baptized person who professes to hold the Catholic Faith, yet who manifests an explicit lack of knowledge and belief in the necessary dogmas is not a Catholic as he does not have the Catholic Faith, since he does not hold it whole and undefiled. As such he is on the road to Hell.

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.” (Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, Art.7-8)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Cf. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.2, Art.7-8)

Knowledge and belief in the essential mysteries of the faith are absolutely necessary for salvation. If one is ignorant of these things, it is either sinful in itself (due to negligence) or it is the punishment for other sins. This is stated very clearly by St. Thomas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 53, Art. 2, Reply to Obj. 2: “[I]gnorance has the nature of mortal sin, not of itself, but on account either of a preceding negligence, or of the consequent result, and for this reason it is reckoned one of the general causes of sin.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 10, Art. 1: “If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.”

But, if he had come to a heretical belief contrary to a dogma that does not pertain to the absolutely necessary Mysteries or the Natural Law, however, and if he did this without any obstinacy, following the prescription of St. Augustine, we cannot say that he is damned or that this person is a heretic, but an erring Catholic.

Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This means that it is possible that many of the children above reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church teaching. This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has always taught (as we will see) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church. So please, dear reader, if you hold Mike Bizzaro’s, Victoria DePalma’s or Richard Ibranyi’s heresy (among others): Recant your accusation. Cease condemning Catholics who don’t hold to heresy; stop leading others into schism.

Pope Leo XIII, Exima Nos Laetitia, 1903: “The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. … They no longer have the Sacraments, with the exception of Baptism, which they confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a fruitful baptism for the children provided that, once the age of reason is reached, they do not embrace the schism.”

Notice that Pope Leo XIII taught that baptism is a “fruitful Sacrament for the children” of non-Catholic sects provided that, “they do not embrace the schism.” But how do one embrace the schism? By obstinacy!

And this truth is exactly what is expressed by Pope Clement VI in the following statement:

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., in schism!] from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)

To illustrate the difference between our views of what it takes to become a heretic, let’s look at the case of two members of the SSPX. First, I should note that Richard Ibranyi holds that all people who attend the SSPX are heretics, whereas we correctly say that only those who obstinately agree with them once they become familiar with the issue are heretics. Okay, let’s say there are two members of the Society of St. Pius X who obstinately agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved in false religions, that John Paul II is the Pope (after seeing the evidence against him) and who believe that they are free to reject the “Canonizations” of the man they deem to be the Pope. Unfortunately, these two SSPX members are, in fact, heretics for obstinately holding such positions. But what about their baptized children? All infants who are baptized are Catholics. So do the baptized children of these SSPX heretics become heretics automatically when they reach the age of reason? The answer is no, because in order to be a heretic one must obstinately reject a Catholic teaching. If one is not aware of the Catholic teaching or is not familiar with the issue involved, he is not necessarily a heretic.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.”

St. Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” (quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.)

The children of these SSPX heretics don’t become heretics at the age of reason; they become heretics at the point when they hear about and understand the issue at stake and then obstinately reject the Catholic position. Thus, it would be totally false and schismatical to assert that all the children above reason at the SSPX chapels are heretics.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

This teaching simply reiterates the responsibility all people have to embrace and submit to the true religion. For the baptized non-Catholic, then, while it would not be sinning mortally to hold a material heresy contrary to a non-essential dogma (like the papacy), any material heresy held against an essential dogma (like the Trinity) would still be against the true Faith and no person can be saved unless he or she holds a right faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. They are therefore out of the way of salvation, due to their state of separation from the Catholic Church.

This person, to be again reconciled with God, must renounce heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith, and receive worthily the sacrament of penance; or if this cannot be had, he must have perfect contrition or charity with the desire to receive the sacrament of penance (Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4). It is therefore evident that, if these persons and others like them were to die in heresy or unbelief, they would be lost forever.

Finally, the Church herself, while not requiring an abjuration from children under the age of fourteen (presumably because they are not considered to have yet attained the faculty to understand all the ins and outs of the heresy they were brought up in), nevertheless are still required to make a profession of faith, for the very reason that they are converts, entering the Catholic Church from outside Her.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Abjuration: “The abjuration demanded of converts in the present discipline of the Church is essentially the same as the above. A convert to the Church who has never been baptized is not obliged to abjure heresy. A convert, whose baptism is considered valid, or who, at most, on his reception into the Church is rebaptized conditionally, is required to make a profession of faith, which contains an abjuration of heresy. A salutary penance also is imposed (S. Cong. S. Off., Nov., 1875. See Appendix Conc. Plen. Balt., II, 277, 278; American edit. Roman Ritual, 1, 2, 3). No abjuration is required from converts under the age of fourteen (S. Cong. S. Off., Mar. 8, 1882, in Collectanea S. Cong. de Propag. Fid., n. 1680, ed. 1903).”

Note: The above quotation inaccurately says “rebaptized conditionally”. This is technically incorrect. If a person is presumed to not have been baptized, then he is not rebaptized, but baptized for the first time. The reason it is a conditional baptism (not rebaptism) is because if he was POSSIBLY baptized already, then the intention is made clear that the ceremony be not regarded by God as an attempt to baptize anew a person already baptized (as this would be a sacrilege and a mortal sin). It is therefore dependent on the condition that he has not ever been validly baptized, hence the name conditional baptism.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “Three of the sacraments, namely baptism, confirmation and orders, imprint indelibly on the soul a character, that is a kind of stamp which distinguishes it from the rest. Hence they are not repeated in the same person.”

Please, if you have been raised in schism from the true Church of Jesus Christ, by adhering to the 20th century antipopes starting with John XXIII, begin your abjuration process and convert to the Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

Breaking down Mike Bizzaro & Victoria DePalma’s Principal Heresy

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra #12, Jan. 6, 1873: “… every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.”

Never is this statement more true than in the case of Mike Bizzaro, Victoria DePalma or Richard Ibranyi and the schismatic sects which they have created. Please bear with me as I prove this. Suppose I were to ask you the question: “how many wills does Jesus Christ have, one or two?” I have posed this question to many traditional Catholics, and almost all of them have responded “one.” This is not correct. Jesus Christ has two wills, a divine and a human will. Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures (He has a Divine nature and a human nature) and therefore He has a Divine will and a human will. If Our Lord did not have a human will then He would not be truly man as well as truly God. The idea that Our Lord has only one will was solemnly anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople.

Pope St. Agatho, Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “And so we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in Him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but His human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to His divine and all powerful will.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 128)

To assert that Our Lord Jesus Christ has only one will is precisely the monothelite heresy. So, were these Catholics that I questioned on this issue heretics and outside the Body of Christ for answering that Christ has “one will”? No, they were not heretics because of this opinion, because 1) they thought this was the Catholic position and didn’t understand all the ramifications of the issue; and 2) they weren’t aware that it has been defined that Christ has two wills: one for each nature. (Note: If they had comprehended beforehand that to say that Christ has one will is actually to deny Our Lord’s humanity then they would be heretics, but this was not the case). Therefore, to put it simply, these Catholics were not obstinate or pertinacious in their belief that Christ has one will (i.e., they did not deliberately or knowingly deny this teaching of the Church) and therefore they were not heretics.

Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

And this is a good example of how pertinacity or obstinacy is a requirement for heresy. Thus, these Catholics who held that Christ had one will were not heretics unless they demonstrated obstinacy in this belief; but, being of good will, after I informed these persons that it is a defined dogma that Christ has two wills (which is intimately connected to the fact that He has two natures) they immediately changed their position. If after that point they had affirmed that Christ had only one will, they would have been heretics and outside the Church.

Therefore, this dogma (Christ’s two wills) is an example of a dogma or a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn’t have to be known positively by all in order to be saved. It can never be rejected, but some people could be innocently ignorant of it or confused about it until the Church’s teaching is pointed out to them or explained to them, because a Catholic is not bound to have a positive knowledge of all the teachings of the Church to be a Catholic. I hope that the reader is following me so far.

However, with a mystery of faith that must be positively known by all to be saved, there can be no confusion or ignorance like that described on Christ’s two wills. With these mysteries – such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnationyou must positively know them in order to be saved, and you must know them positively in all ages above the age of reason. This is why “invincible ignorance” cannot save anyone, and this idea is a horrible heresy, because no one above reason who wishes to be saved can be ignorant of the principal mysteries of Catholicism and be saved.

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: “We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4): “See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”

Here we see Pope Benedict XIV confirming the Catholic teaching that there are certain mysteries of faith that no one above the age of reason can be ignorant of and be saved (such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation). But this does not apply to all the truths of the Catholic faith, as stated above when discussing the dogma of Christ’s two wills. A Catholic could be ignorant in good faith of some of the other truths of the faith; but he can never be ignorant of the Faith itself (i.e., the principal mysteries). Pope St. Pius X confirms the exact same teaching.

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Here follows a question concerning the above information that is relevant to the discussion and in understanding their position:

“Can a self-professed Protestant—assuming he is validly baptized—who never heard of Catholic dogmas ever be a heretic? If so, then explain how? If not, then you would have to admit that all self-professed Protestants who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually Catholics, inside the Church, and thus can be saved. Do you agree with this last statement?”

The answer:

CONCERNING THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS, CONCERNING THE NATURAL LAW, AND THE ESSENTIAL MYSTERIES NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide.

The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This means that all validly baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, or something contrary to the Natural Law. (Sadly, such teachings against the Natural Law is very common in the heretical and Protestants sects of today, especially when it comes to sexual sins, which shows us that those people who believe such things are lawful to do are damned in their heresies against the Natural Law, since these sins can never be excused by claiming ignorance.) In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

The fact is that all Protestants who obstinately reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.

Therefore, all validly baptized infants (Catholics), when they reach the age of reason in a Protestant building, if they hold the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the two essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith) hold the absolutely essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity

“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ… the Son of God is God and man… This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If they don’t know about any other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) then they are not heretics but Catholics (Christians), unless they hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural law or deny something that they know to be clearly taught in Scripture. For instance, if the baptized person described above claims to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but holds that all religions are more or less good, then he is a heretic and does not have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such a position is condemned by the Church) because his belief is incompatible with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which belief he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest components.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “…that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy… Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it...”

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the simplest components of the Catholic Faith) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas holds that man does not have free will (which some Protestants teach). This person would also become a heretic because he is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, that man has a free will. Thus, he is denying a truth all know about man from the natural law and he is a heretic.

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation (the Catholic Faith in its simplest components) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas refuses to believe that God is a rewarder and a punisher. This person is a heretic because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions (see Heb. 11:6).

A large majority of Protestants today believe in the doctrines of “faith alone” and “eternal security.” These doctrines contradict both the natural law and reason which says that every man shall be rewarded or punished for his deeds. It also contradicts, word for word, the teaching of James 2 in scripture, which teach that faith without works is dead, and that man is not saved by faith alone. This person who believes in faith alone or eternal security is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions, and that faith alone does not justify a man only, but our deeds also.

Other common heresies against the natural law is 1) to deny the existence of God, 2) to hold as opinion that birth control or natural family planning (also called NFP) is acceptable, 3) to hold that abortion is acceptable or a so called “human right”, 4) to hold that the consumption of mind altering drugs to the point where the conscience is impeded is acceptable, 5) or to hold that masturbation or any other shameful, perverted sexual act, such as foreplay, anal or oral sex, or lustful kisses and touches is acceptable to do (whether inside or outside of marriage). In truth, to hold any or all of these positions as “acceptable” or “right to do” would all fall under the category of the mortal sin of heresy against the natural law, because he who is guilty of this sin is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, 1) that God exists, 2) that abortion is murder (of the most innocent too!), 3 & 5) that contraception, NFP or masturbation or other unnatural sexual acts (which, in addition to being inherently shameful, unnatural and perverse) deliberately frustrates the natural power to generate life, and 4) that the consumption of mind altering drugs and getting intoxicated by it – such as by smoking marijuana – is a mortal sin just like getting drunk is, because when “a man willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason, whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin… he sins mortally by running the risk of falling into sin. For [Saint] Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): “We learn that we should shun drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous sins. For the things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly [or knowingly] commit through drunkenness.” Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking, is a mortal sin.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 150, Article 2. Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin?)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church and Salvation by heresy, schism or apostasy.

The baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building.

In fact, if one thinks about it, the novel idea and heresy of the Bizarros (that is, Mike Bizzaro and Victoria DePalma that promotes immaculata-one.com) would mean that every baptized child on reaching the age of reason, at that precise moment, would have to know every single dogma of the church in order to be saved. If that doesn’t sound ridiculous, I don’t know what does? The fact that not even a single Pope or Saint have taught the Bizarros’ heresy clearly, but that even many popes and saints have taught exactly against their heresy, and that people must be obstinate in order to sin or to become heretics, does not seem to move these heretics one bit, sad to say.

Email conversations with Victoria DePalma and Mike4Dogma

Hey Ville, a heretic named Vicki messaged me…

I see that she is a blind follower of the heretic named Mike4Dogma. I already replied to her and gave her these teachings:

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: "For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all."

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: "...We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved." (Denz. 570b)

Do you know of any more quotes I can use that prove this? Thanks!

-------------------------------------

Hello Ryan!

I have talked with Mike and a female associate of him before, I don't know if it was Vicki (the woman I talked with went by the name of Victoria DePalma). However, they both know they are wrong, and they both ended the discussion in shame, and in false arguments; and they also avoided the points that I brought up and the dogmas. They are of complete bad will and are part of those schismatics I have talked and written about before (that believe people cannot be mistaken about a dogma and that one must positively know of every dogma of the Church to be saved).

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say to her with those quotes you used. Did you mean to tell her that one needs to be obstinate to leave the Church etc. when it concerns doctrines not of natural law? If so, that is absolutely correct, and a good point -- and those quotes I never used my self in my responses to them. However, I did point out one can be mistaken, of course. If you had something else in mind you have to tell me since I don't always understand before having it explained to me.

Other than that, I can tell you how I have responded to them in the past... They think that no one can ever be mistaken or ignorant about a dogma. They thus believe in the heresy that one must positively know about every dogma and that a person needs to positively know about every dogma to be saved. (And they are not only referring to dogmas of the natural law.) They need to come out of this heresy first. And I have tried to do that, but to no avail, it seems.

However, I do believe strongly that if you send this woman my old conversations with her friends (and add something to it that I may have missed) and she sees how false they argue, and the points they avoid, and the lies they make -- that she might indeed be able to see the truth and convert. For only someone of complete bad will could fail to see the obvious truth when presented with it. Pride is their problem, and a refusal to admit to being wrong.

You could add whatever information you wish to her, and write the following (and fix it to better English or add something if you like):


Please consider the following email conversations between a youtube user named TheProphecyChannel (whose website is http://www.allmonks.com/) and your friends Victoria DePalma and Mik4Dogma.

The following email conversations is very revealing and shows that they have not a clue of what they are talking about or even believing, and that they are misunderstanding and misapplying Catholic dogma. And the fact that they avoid answering TheProphecyChannel's questions while he always answers theirs, is particularly revealing and shows that they are not after the truth. It is also sad to see how they both made false arguments and lied about his position.

All the information can be read below, in their own words. The conversation first begins with Victoria DePalma, since she was the first to contact him. After their messages, TheProphecyChannel's conversations with Mik4Dogma starts.

-------------------------------------

Email conversations with Victoria DePalma

EMAIL CONVERSATION 1

-------------------------------------

Victoria DePalma

03/24/13

Thanks for writing

The reason you're excommunicated and headed for Hell is because you believe the "material heresy" hoax ... off your site ...

[Quoting from our site:] "The term "material heresy" is used to describe persons who believe in a heresy without knowing that they are contradicting the Catholic Church's."

Never .. not ONCE is "material heresy" mentioned in ANY General Council ... and NOT ONCE in the Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma ... but the OPPOSITE of "material heresy" IS in the Councils.

- - - -

The Catholic Church has CONDEMNED "material heresy" over and over and over ... the Dogma YOU are rejecting ...

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >

"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX, Session 2, Profession of Faith -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >

"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear."

… [some irrelevant quotes omitted] …

If you want to be Christian someday by entering the Catholic Church (which has no buildings at this time) ... the top Abjuration of Heresy on Section 19.1 applies to the state your soul is in.

Please make the Abjuration in the context of the steps on Section 2.1 of the site.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Victoria DePalma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

03/24/13

Re:Thanks for writing

You are an idiot [I regret having used such and similar words in my earlier discussions, for when one speaks or writes to people it is always better not to use harsh words and to speak politely, and to be as charitable and nice as possible as such behavior will more easily convert a person, for it is very hard for a person to admit to being wrong against a person who is attacking him]. According to your belief then no person can ever be unaware of a teaching of the Church and speak against it without by that very fact, becoming a heretic.

[[Some information added afterwards for clarification: The Church also teaches that obstinacy is required for one to become a schismatic and be put outside the Church, and that this is not just decided on whether one was innocently mistaken about some non-essential Church teaching:

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: "For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who OBSTINATELY OPPOSE the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief shepherd of all."

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: "...We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., culpably] separated from the faith of this Roman Church." (Denz. 570b)]]

The dogma of "whole and undefined" simply means that one doesn't obstinately contradict the Faith or reject the natural law. Not even all dogmas was known at first [by most people or dogmatized until centuries later], so this should be obvious to you. People and saints did deny the immaculate conception of Mary, you know, before it was established as a dogma. That didn't make them heretics, neither does it make a person a heretic today if he unknowingly denies it in good faith.

If a person lives in the jungle and has never heard of the Assumption of Mary, he may deny it without knowing what the Church teaches. Does it make him a heretic? No. If he is not obstinate and is willing to embrace the true position when presented with the truth [he] is still adhering to the Faith whole and undefiled in the manner he understand it.

Some things can one not be ignorant about though such as the incarnation of our Lord and the trinity and the natural law (do good, do not kill etc) but to imply this on all teaching and dogmas, such as the assumption, immaculate conception, etc, is idiocy and a mortal sin, and if you remain obstinate, you are a heretic for denying what you know is true...

A council doesn't have to mention things which are obvious or that are of the natural law. That people can be mistaken or ignorant is implicit. Only a bad willed person could deny that.

In the same way, a council doesn't have the mention that it is a mortal sin to have sex with a tree. It is enough that it mentions and condemns sexual immorality. Councils and dogmas never contradict the natural law. And it is of the natural law that people can be mistaken about lesser important doctrinal matters.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

[She never responded, so I contacted her again.]


TheProphecyChannel

04/01/13

Re:Thanks for writing

Why didn't you respond? I wrote to you in charity. You are deceived and headed for Hell if you obstinately believe in the heresy you presented to me. What I wrote to you is common sense and logic. That is why it cannot be refuted or spoken against. And is that why you didn't answer?

Please, consider the issue and abjure your evil heresies and schism and join the Church. Stop being obstinate, please.

If you pray earnestly, the rosary, the our Father, in knowing the truth, you will be led to the truth, if you are honest.

[But] If you already think you are right and you will not change position. Then we have nothing more to speak about.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

-------------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 2

-------------------------------------

Victoria DePalma

04/02/13

Fewness of the saved

P.C. -

Given the infallible Dogma that ignorance sends you into Hell ... you should better understand all the Catholic citations regarding ... the fewness of the saved.

Much more on Section 22 of my site > Immaculata-one (dot) com.

(Again, you are excommunicated)

- - - -

Blessed Louis Marie de Montfort, died 1716 A.D. >

"The number of the Elect is so small, so small that, were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief. One here and there, scattered up and down the world."

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor of the Church, died 1787 A.D. >

"Scarcely anyone is saved."

Catholic writing of Romans 9:27 >

"And Isaias crieth out concerning Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved."

Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Isaias 10:19 >

"They shall be so few that they shall easily be counted, and a child shall write them down."

- - - -

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >

"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX, Session 2, Profession of Faith -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >

"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear."

Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX, Session 3, Chapter 3 On Faith, Paragraphs 8-9 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >

"Wherefore, by Divine and Catholic Faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as Divinely revealed (...) Since, then, without Faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

… [some irrelevant quotes omitted] …

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Victoria DePalma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

04/03/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

Ignorance of the essential mysteries, yes (see the quotes below proving this), but not every article of the Faith.

Tell me this, do you think knowledge of every article of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation?

You also don't seem to understand that... the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled is [in its simplest form] simply but belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Hence, any baptized person must believe and understand at least the Trinity and the Incarnation, but can very well be ignorant about everything else [that is not part of the natural law or the mysterious of faith which must be believed].

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.-- But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: "We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments."

Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4): "See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent... that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved..."

Here we see Pope Benedict XIV confirming the Catholic teaching that there are certain mysteries of faith that no one above the age of reason can be ignorant of and be saved (such as the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation). But this does not apply to all the truths of the Catholic faith, as stated above when discussing the dogma of Christ's two wills. A Catholic could be ignorant in good faith of some of the other truths of the faith; but he can never be ignorant of the Faith itself (i.e., the principal mysteries). Pope St. Pius X confirms the exact same teaching.

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: "And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.'"

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas further taught the truth that all men above reason are bound to know the principal mysteries of Christ for salvation with no exceptions for ignorance.

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity."

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

[since she didn't respond to my above message, I emailed her again]

TheProphecyChannel

04/07/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

Have you nothing to say in response? If you consider my last message you will understand that what I am saying to you is true. Even the quotes, saints, popes and dogmas that I cited confirms what I said. -- The level of bad will you must have if you still refuse to change in view of these facts is saddening and astonishing. But what does not pride do to a man? Please, do not be prideful. You are wrong. Accept that and change. Do not be like Lucifer. Do not hate God. Why do you hate Him so much so that you rather will have your own way than His?

And by the way, people do not go to Hell because they are ignorant of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary, but rather because they are mortal sinners and of bad will. Real sins are what causes people to be damned, as Our Lady of Fatima revealed to the three shepherd children. Sins of the flesh and pride especially is what leads most souls to Hell. That has always been the case since the beginning.

Ignorance of the Trinity and Incarnation also leads to damnation, as explained in the previous mail. But people remain ignorant of these essential mysterious because of bad lives and mortal sins, and because they are heretics against the natural law. It is thus because of sin. No one that lives in accordance with the natural law will be lost or die without the Catholic Faith (which is, in its simplest form: belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) and baptism. That is why Indians and other people who did not fully know God or the Catholic Faith but who yet lived good lives were converted and brought to the Faith and baptism before the end of their lives.

I pray and hope for your conversion.

Please, pray yourself to God in sincerity and humility for knowing the truth. And the truth will set you free, so long as you are sincere and not prideful and obstinate in your own damnable ways.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

-------------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 3

-------------------------------------

Victoria DePalma

04/08/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

[quoting my question to her:] Tell me this, do you think knowledge of every article of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation?

[she answers:] Yes that's what the Dogma of the Holy Spirit says.

That's why you have the fewness of the saved.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Victoria DePalma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

04/08/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

No the fewness of the saved is because of mortal sins. You really cannot read much spiritual books with the ridiculous opinions you have. All saints, fathers, doctors, popes and Heavenly revelations teach that actual sins is what condemns almost all people (those who are ignorant of the Faith is ignorant of it because of their bad lives as explained by Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas). Yet, in your devilish pride you think you know better than what has always been taught. And there is no contradiction in this teaching among saints and theologians as with baptism of desire, so you have no excuse... False so-called Catholics who acts like protestants are the worst.

And no that is not what the Dogma of the Holy Spirit says, as I already explained that to you. Go back to the quotes I quoted, admit them, read them, and try to explain how they fit your heresy. Do not try to get out of this. Stop being of bad will. The dogma of the Council of Trent [I meant the Council of Florence] clearly said what was necessary for salvation in its simplest form: belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. Yet you deny this. For you are of bad will. Dogmas does not contradict each other. It is just you who interpret them evilly. For you have no charity.

Why do you deny the quotes? Stop being obstinate. You know that you are wrong, and that your position is ridiculous. That is why you are avoiding this discussion. Stop hiding from the truth and the light, but since [you] are of darkness, you hate the light. You would actually have people believe... that if a unbeliever today was converted at his death to the Traditional Catholic Faith, and he believed in the Trinity and Incarnation... and was baptized, yet, according to you, if he did not understand the Immaculate conception and the Assumption of Mary, he would not be saved. Is that really your position?

You cannot really believe in this? Can you? You cannot be that stupid really. If that is what you believe, you should really read more of the lives of the missionaries to the Indians, St. Isaac Jogues, Jean de Brébeuf etc., and you will see that it was sufficient for them to preach the essential mysteries and administering baptism; they certainly didn't believe in the heresy you believe in, [i.e.,] that every article of the faith is an obligation for salvation.

Sad to say, but you are not a Catholic [since you reject this truth of the natural law (that people can be mistaken about non-essentials)]. And that you are obstinate in your false position, sad to say, is also what makes you a heretic [per the Church's own definition]. The definition of a heretic is namely one who obstinately rejects a Catholic truth and obstinately prefers their heresy. You know you are wrong, your conscience tells you you're wrong, common logic tells you you're wrong, the quotes I quoted tells you you're wrong (and they don't contradict the one's you quoted, it's just that they are to be interpreted as I have explained them and as you refuse to accept). But you don't care. For you are of darkness and of the devil.

Please don't be obstinate. And pray God for light, and he will set you free. If you just pray for light and is honest, you will know the truth. Don't be so sure about yourself. You perhaps don't want to admit you're wrong out of pride, but at least, pray about it.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

-------------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 4

-------------------------------------

Victoria DePalma

04/11/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

Do the "lutheran" and "vatican-2" cult heretics believe in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation?

Are they on the road to Hell or Heaven ?

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Victoria DePalma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

04/11/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

[In answering her questions whether “the "lutheran" and "vatican-2" cult heretics believe in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation?” Are they on the road to Hell or Heaven ?:] Yes they believe in the essential mysteries. But most of them [of the people who go to their churches] are heretics anyway in many other aspects of the faith. Most of them [of the people who go to their churches] are also mortal sinners [not only against the natural law, but also against God's laws and commandments and thus damned]. So what's your point? [It must be pointed out that if a person is a “Lutheran” or a “Vatican 2” adherent (a non-Catholic) properly speaking, he is damned since it is impossible to be a “Lutheran” or a “Vatican 2” non-Catholic without being damned, but if a person who considers himself a Lutheran goes to a heretical church but without obstinately holding to a heretical belief (such as an infant that has reached the age of reason), such a person is not necessarily damned or a non-catholic, provided he believe in the essential mysteries and do not contradict the natural law – as has already been explained above.]

Infants validly baptized in those sects you mentioned above are also Catholics, until they embrace and believes in heresies. And of course, when these infants reach the age of reason, they may remain Catholics (that is, may have the Catholic Faith in it's simplest form) and be Catholics, even though they worship in a protestant or Vatican II "Church".

All "Christian" sects who have an orthodox belief in the Trinity and Incarnation and a valid baptism may thus have Catholics among its members, especially the infants, but also those above the age of reason, provided that [they] are Catholics and not heretics in anyway.

To learn when such a person described above may become a heretic, please consult this section: http://www.allmonks.com/catholic-dogma/#the-natural-law

One only becomes a heretic (after one has already been initiated into the faith through baptism and faith in the Trinity and Incarnation) when one willingly -- and with full consent and reason -- give consent to a heretical or evil doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith or the Natural Law -- and not simply from reaching the age of reason -- as some erroneously believe (again, see the above link).

And concerning your question. Yes, they are on the road to Hell IF they are "protestants" and not Catholics. If they are non-Catholics or protestants they are on their road to Hell. If they are Vatican II "Catholics" and not traditional Catholics, they are on their road to Hell. Also every Catholic not in state of Grace are on their road to Hell.

[And by the way] Your questions has nothing to do with what we were talking about or what I was writing to you about. I was talking about Catholics all along who were ignorant about some article of the Faith. I was not talking about actual heretics. You are condemning -- as far as I understand it -- both Catholics and heretics alike for simply being ignorant of some lesser important Church doctrine...

Answer this: does a baptized converted pagan or Indian go to Heaven if he believes in the Trinity and Incarnation and are not a heretic (in any aspect of the Faith and he is not in mortal sin) even if he is ignorant of most other aspects of the Faith, such as the Pope, the Assumption, etc?

No one is condemned for being ignorant of lesser important Church doctrines or if he doesn't obstinately reject anything or have yet become heretical, but everyone is condemned for actual heresies and mortal sins. Per Catholic dogma: belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is the Catholic Faith in its simplest form, and you are a heretic if you deny this truth. You are a heretic if you claim that people who cannot possibly know anything more than the basics (since they had no time to learn more before their death) is condemned if they died while only understanding the basics.

This is what I am trying to make you understand. But so far you seem to have rejected this truth.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

-------------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 5

-------------------------------------

Victoria DePalma

[notice how she completely ignored all of which I wrote and the questions I asked only focusing on the below]

04/16/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

You're lying ... all "lutherans" and vatican-2-ists are heretics (not most).

Why are you lying ?

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Victoria DePalma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

04/16/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

Of course most if not all of them [who go to their churches] are heretics. Still, not everyone necessarily are or have to be, as I explained. There is a small chance -- although the scenario is not very likely -- that some of those above the age of reasons are Catholics, in so far as they have not yet embraced any of the protestant or Vatican II heresies incompatible with the Catholic Faith and salvation.

Do you deny the above definition (and what was explained in the other mail) or what?

Also all their infants, validly baptized, are Catholics.

Please, consider the points covered, not how it was expressed.

I hope you will consider the things I have said to you, and how they contradict your current position on the issue. You[r] stance is not correct, and in charity I have tried to point this out to you.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

-------------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 6

-------------------------------------

Victoria DePalma

04/18/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

[Victoria say:] YOU stated ...

"Hence, any baptized person must believe and understand at least the Trinity and the Incarnation, but can very well be ignorant about everything else."

My question ...

How does the "lutheran" heretic (who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation) escape Hell ... without knowing the Abjuration Dogma that he must Abjure his heresy to become Christian ?

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

[message 2 on the same subject]

Victoria DePalma

04/18/13

Creed alone heretics

You stated ...

"Hence, any baptized person must believe and understand at least the Trinity and the Incarnation, but can very well be ignorant about everything else."

HOW ... does the "Creed alone" person get to Heaven without KNOWING about sins against morality?

To quote your apparent mentor ...

Heretic Martin Luther ... Quote: "Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith."

So ... YOU are with the condemned Martin Luther on this.

I have a full section on Immaculata-one (dot) com ... against the "Creed alone" heresy on Section 5.4.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above messages of Victoria DePalma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

05/06/13

Re:Fewness of the saved

1. Abjuration is not necessary in the same way as baptism and the faith is.

Abjuration is necessary in the same way as confession is, and only when available and required. One can be saved without confession with perfect contrition. The same goes with abjuration. If a person has really converted from his heresies, then he is Saved. Written Abjuration is thus not [absolutely] necessary.

It seems as if you think God doesn't see a man's heart, what he believes, or that He judge him accordingly.

[Abjuration is only required if the Church formally demands it of you in written form. No such requirements exists today. Neither has it ever been defined as a dogma that such a thing is absolutely necessary for salvation. Everyone knows in their conscience that if a person really converted from his heresies in his heart and yet died before having written an abjuration, that he would be saved if he died in state of grace. Only someone who is completely evil could deny this truth of the Natural Law.]

2. You said: HOW ... does the "Creed alone" person get to Heaven without KNOWING about sins against morality?

Did you read any of my emails at all? I said that a person who is not in mortal sin or heresy and if he does not reject the natural law, that he can be saved. What do you not understand with that? Not all [so-called] protestants or Vatican II "Catholics" reject the natural law or are in mortal sin the moment they reach age of reason. Thus, many baptized Catholics in these sects can remain Catholic or in state of grace for a while.

I have never said it is sufficient to just believe in the creed regardless of what [one] does or believes otherwise. You are just a dishonest person that distorts what I say, since you have nothing else to say. You do this because what I say convicts you of your faults and obvious errors on these points. Your conscience convicts you also.

So far you have not had the grace enough to change, nor have you had the courage or manliness to do the right thing and embrace the true position; therefore you lie. Obstinacy is your problem. Your website is not helping you either. You have already distributed your lies and falsehoods, and so it will be extremely difficult for you to change and actually admit to everyone what a deceiver you have been. But only pride is making it hard for you. Nothing else. A person that actually cares about God or His truth and that is humble would change position immediately upon being informed... But you, however, do not.

3. I already proved to you that it is not necessary to know every article of the Faith as you falsely claim, and as the dogmas proved (that I cited to you). Thus, material heresy exist, and people can be ignorant and in error.

Yet, have you said anything about that, or changed your position. No, instead you lie about my position and avoid what I have said, as if to avoid the points I made refuting you, bad willed as you are.

I also proved to you that all infants validly baptized are Catholics, even if baptized in a protestant church, and that hence many people reaching the age of reason in these heretical churches may be Catholics -- until the moment they actually embrace heresies and lose their faith.

4. Please read this section below so that you will understand my position on this issue, and so that you will not lie about what I believe or have said anymore.

Only a liar, a heretic, and a damned soul devoid of all good will, can deny this.

THE NATURAL LAW

The natural law is written on the heart of all men, so that all men know that certain things are against God's law and that certain things are in accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.

[The natural law is the law that every person knows by instinct from birth. It is planted by the Creator in our heart, and everyone -- even pagans who have never heard about God or the true Catholic religion -- receive this gift from God. Examples of sins that break the natural law and that are easy to recognize are abortion, murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, homosexuality, slander, lying, and so on. The conscience always convicts a person who does these things and thus there can never be an excuse for people who commit such sins.]

As the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about Romans 2:14-16,

"these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honoring their parents, etc. not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve a supernatural reward in the kingdom of heaven; but God, out of His infinite mercy, will give them some supernatural graces" which if they continue to cooperate with they will get more graces and eventually be exposed to the Catholic Faith, which they must have to be saved."

All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide. These baptized Catholics, when they reach the age of reason in a Protestant building, if they hold the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the two essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith) hold the absolutely essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.-- But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

If they don't know about any other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) then they are not heretics but Catholics [Christians], unless they hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural law or deny something that they know to be clearly taught in Scripture. For instance, if the baptized person described above claims to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but holds that all religions are more or less good, then he is a heretic and does not have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such a position is condemned by the Church) because his belief is incompatible with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which belief he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest components.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: "...that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it..."

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation (which are the simplest components of the Catholic Faith) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas holds that man does not have free will (which some Protestants teach). This person would also become a heretic even before he has seen his position condemned by the Church and before he has heard of other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) because he is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, that man has a free will. Thus, he is denying a truth all know about man from the natural law and he is a heretic.

Another example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity and Incarnation (the Catholic Faith in its simplest components) and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas refuses to believe that God is a rewarder and a punisher. This person is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions (see Heb. 11:6).

A large majority of Protestants today believe in the doctrines of "faith alone" and "eternal security." These doctrines contradict both the natural law and reason which says that every man shall be rewarded or punished for his deeds. It also contradicts, word for word, the teaching of James 2 in scripture, which teach that faith without works is dead, and that man is not saved by faith alone. This person who believes in faith alone or eternal security is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions, and that faith alone does not justify a man only, but our deeds also.

... [Other common heresies against the natural law is, 1) to deny the existence of God, 2) to hold as opinion that birth control or natural family planning (also called NFP) is acceptable, 3) or to hold that abortion is acceptable or a so called "human right", 4) to hold that the consuming of mind altering drugs to the point where the conscience is impeded is acceptable, 5) or to hold that masturbation or any other shameful, perverted sexual act, such as foreplay, is acceptable. To hold any or all of these positions as "acceptable" or "right to do" would all fall under the category of the mortal sin of heresy against the natural law, because he who is guilty of this sin is rejecting a truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, 1) that God exists, 2) that abortion is murder (of the most innocent too!), 3) that contraception, NFP or masturbation (which, in addition to being inherently shameful, unnatural and perverse) deliberately frustrates the natural power to generate life, and 4) that the consuming of mind altering drugs such as smoking marijuana is a mortal sin just like getting drunk is, because when "a man willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason, whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin... he sins mortally by running the risk of falling into sin. For [Saint] Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): "We learn that we should shun drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous sins. For the things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly [or knowingly] commit through drunkenness." Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking, is a mortal sin." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 150, Article 2. Whether drunkenness is a mortal sin?)] …

Thus, we can see that it's the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church and Salvation by heresy, schism or apostasy.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

The baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don't reject any Catholic dogma because they don't know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don't embrace any of the positions like those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building.

Sent to: Victoria DePalma

[She never responded anymore after I sent this last message]


-------------------------------------

Email conversations with Mike4Dogma

EMAIL CONVERSATION 1

-------------------------------------

Mike4Dogma

[His first long message has been truncated to the only relevant parts.]

10/25/13

God's must know Catholic Dogma ... is Ripped from your Soul

Are you currently being sent into Hell forever ... automatically excommunicated (outside) of God's Catholic Church ?

Answer: Yes you are ... you can reverse it ... please continue.

...

You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church ... Dogma you have *never* seen.

...

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Mike4Dogma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

10/26/13

Re:God's must know Catholic Dogma ... is Ripped from your Soul

Ignorance of the essential mysteries does not excuse since one cannot be a Catholic without believing or understanding the essentials of this mystery, but that does not apply to every article of the Faith (such as the immaculate conception etc., which means a person can be saved without knowing about this as long as he holds and believes the essentials--see Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22 below proving this fact.).

Tell me this, do you think knowledge of every article of the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation? If so then you don't seem to understand that... the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled in its simplest form is belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Hence, any baptized person must believe and understand at least the Trinity and the Incarnation but can very well be ignorant about everything else [that is not part of the natural law or the mysterious of faith which must be believed].

… [omitted the quotations showing belief in the Trinity and Incarnation necessary for salvation since it has already been quoted several times] …

PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE AND READ THE ARTICLE SINCE IT IS RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC:

http://www.allmonks.com/catholic-dogma/#the-natural-law

Sent to: Mike4Dogma

--------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 2

--------------------------------

Mike4Dogma

10/26/13

Thanks for writing

In the below Scripture ... God creates the human rational soul.

Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Jeremias 1:5 >

"Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee."

- - - -

Can God reach the soul ... that He *created in the first place* ... the the *complete* faith ?

Yes ... or ... No.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Mike4Dogma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

10/27/13

Re:Thanks for writing

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

What I do know though is that the pre-existence of souls is a condemned heresy.

That God knows everything, however, is another thing and doesn't contradict that souls nonetheless does not exist until they first were created by God.

Since God knows everything -- past and present -- he already knew how they would be and that they would exist before they came into being (since it was he that created them of course).

What was the point of your question? I don't understand. And what did you think I what I wrote to you in the previous mail?

Thanks.

Sent to: Mike4Dogma

--------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 3

--------------------------------

Mike4Dogma

10/30/13

Re-wording the question ...

Can God reach the same soul He creates ...

With the complete Faith ?

Yes of No.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

[second message he sent]

Mike4Dogma

10/30/13

I was replying regarding your ... fantastic claim that there is such a thing as "material heresy"

I searched the text of the Catholic Worldwide Councils as follows ....

Searched on --> "material heresy" --> not a single occurance

Searched on --> "material heretic" --> not a single occurance

Searched on --> "formal heresy" --> not a single occurance

Searched on --> "formal heretic" --> not a single occurance

I searched the Denzinger Sources of Dogma in the same manner as above ... with the same results.

- - - - -

Where, did you pick up the "material heresy" heresy ... some encyclopedia or dictionary

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above messages of Mike4Dogma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

10/30/13

Re:I was replying regarding your ... fantastic claim that there is such a thing as "material heresy"

It is of natural law that people can be mistaken (hence that term material heresy). I also showed you the dogma proving to you that the Catholic Faith in it's simplest form is belief in the Trinity and Incarnation.

Therefore, when a person is baptized and believes in the Trinity and Incarnation and he dies without mortal sin he is Saved, even if he remained ignorant of all other doctrines [not of natural law].

If you deny this truth of natural law then you are a heretic.

You know in your conscience that people can be mistaken innocently about non-essential doctrines. You have no excuse for denying ignorance or that one can never be mistaken or unknowing of certain non-essential things.

One can never be mistaken about the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the natural law (do to others as you would have them do to you, do not steal, murder, etc) but to apply this to other doctrines, such as the Immaculate Conception, as if one must know about it absolutely, just as if a baptized converted pagan could not be saved without knowing it even if he died with belief in the Trinity and Incarnation, is ludicrous and false.

Yes when one has been told about them (the non-essential doctrines) one has to believe in them, but one cannot be damned or held accountable for not knowing when one had no way or time of knowing, especially if those doctrines was non-essential for salvation. That is of natural law. This truth is written in your heart, and you have no excuse for claiming ignorance of this law or, as you say: "I searched the text of the Catholic Worldwide Councils as follows..."

[Since one can be saved without knowing every article of the Faith, God doesn't have to reveal these things to people in order for them to be saved, and so Mike4Dogmas questions is really irrelevant and not to the point.]

Sent to: Mike4Dogma

[After this last response he blocked me yet sent me a message. So I had to use another account to even respond to him through a desire for his conversion.]

--------------------------------

Again, it is necessary to repeat this irrefutable evidence that obstinacy is needed for a person to be damned: And this truth is exactly what is expressed by Pope Clement VI in the following statement:

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., in schism!] from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)

To illustrate the difference between our views of what it takes to become a heretic, let’s look at the case of two members of the SSPX. First, I should note again that Richard Ibranyi (who believes in similar heresies as Victoria DePalma and Mike4Dogma) holds that all people who attend the SSPX are heretics, whereas we correctly say that only those who obstinately agree with them once they become familiar with the issue are heretics. Okay, let’s say there are two members of the Society of St. Pius X who obstinately agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved in false religions, that John Paul II is the Pope (after seeing the evidence against him) and who believe that they are free to reject the “Canonizations” of the man they deem to be the Pope. Unfortunately, these two SSPX members are, in fact, heretics for obstinately holding such positions. But what about their baptized children? All infants who are baptized are Catholics. So do the baptized children of these SSPX heretics [automatically] become heretics when they reach the age of reason? The answer is no, because in order to be a heretic one must obstinately reject a Catholic teaching. If one is not aware of the Catholic teaching or is not familiar with the issue involved, he is not necessarily a heretic.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.”

St. Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” (quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.)

The children of these SSPX heretics don’t become heretics at the age of reason; they become heretics at the point when they hear about and understand the issue at stake and then obstinately reject the Catholic position. Thus, it would be totally false and schismatical to assert that all the children above reason at the SSPX chapels are heretics.

--------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 4

--------------------------------

Mike4Dogma

11/03/13

You've been fully informed - thanks

Abjuration of heresy on Section 19.1 of Immaculata-one.com

for you to become Christian someday ... if you want.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Mike4Dogma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

11/04/13

It is clear... one doesn't need to know every aspect of the faith for salvation... Therefore, God does not need to reveal to a person every aspect of the faith before his death for him to be saved (even though he could do it). This is evidenced from the fact that even many saints have been ignorant about many things; some even teaching against defined or later defined dogmas innocently -- such as St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire; and St. Thomas Aquinas, who denied the Immaculate Conception.

Only an outstandingly evil and obstinate person would deny such an obvious fact. Pride is your problem; pray for humility.

You have indeed come up with your own doctrines that no one has ever taught or believed [before]. That is quite prideful. Everyone who is not completely evil knows one can be mistaken about non-essential things without being damned or sin mortally from mere ignorance. Yet you think you are right before everyone else. No, you are wrong, and your new doctrines are heresy.

Ignorance only leads to condemnation on those doctrines which must be known absolutely to be saved (as described above). One also cannot be ignorant about the Natural Law (do not murder, do not steal, do to others as you would have them do to you, etc -- this no one can be mistaken about or believe that it's right to do (such as believing that it's nothing wrong with stealing... such a person would be a heretic against the Natural Law)).

Sent to: Mike4Dogma

-------------------------------------

EMAIL CONVERSATION 5

Mike4Dogma's response to the above message of TheProphecyChannel:

-------------------------------------

Mike4Dogma

11/06/13

Your ... Council of Florence question

If ... *all we need to know* ... was in the Creed ...

... then one doesn't need to know about grave sins against morality ... which cause the loss of your soul.

So much for the "Creed alone" heresy.

I fully address the "Creed alone" heresy ... on Section 5.4 of Immaculata-one.com.

Sent to: TheProphecyChannel

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel's response to the above message of Mike4Dogma:

-------------------------------------

TheProphecyChannel

11/07/13

*all we need to know*

""then one doesn't need to know about grave sins against morality""

No. Stop making false arguments. Stop avoid the issue. What a coward you are avoiding what I have told you several times (see below, again), then you seem to block me and avoid my responses.

You are obviously totally afraid of the truth and my response -- so it seems. You also know in your heart that you are wrong. But you are too diabolically prideful to admit it and change...

I HAVE TOLD YOU

I have told you over and over again that one must know about the natural law to be saved and one cannot be excused for not knowing or following it.

As the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about The Natural Law and Romans 2:14-16: "these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful..."

The natural law implies all evils that are known from instinct; it is implanted by God in our heart and reason.

All other evils, such as not fasting on certain days, or not believing in the immaculate conception, can only be learned by knowledge and thus one can be excused for not following these non-essential laws so long as ignorance excuse.

Perhaps you should read something of what I link to for once and learn something:

http://www.allmonks.com/catholic-dogma/#the-natural-law

REGARDING YOUR "OBJECTION" OF NOT NEEDING TO KNOW MORALITY

Considering the natural law, consider the following:

All people know in their heart that murder, abortion, dressing sensual, masturbation, oral and anal sex, lustful kisses and touches, dirty talking (all of these sexual sins are also a mortal sin within a marriage), and all other unnecessary lustful sexual acts not needed for procreation, and the seven deadly sins etc., -- that they are mortal sins against the natural law and thus no one can ever claim ignorance for committing such sins and thus they will be damned to Hell forever.

There are three main reasons for why the Natural Law, The Holy Bible, Apostolic Tradition, and the Church and Her Popes and Saints (as we will see) teaches that all spouses who perform unnecessary and non-procreative forms of sexual acts (such as masturbation of self or of spouse, oral and anal sex, foreplay, and sensual touches and kisses) either by themselves or in relationship to the marital act before, during or after it, are sinning mortally against their conscience and the Divine and Natural Law instituted by God.

The first reason is that they are a kind of drug abuse since they are selfish and intoxicating; the second is that they are shameful; and the third is that they are non-procreative. These three reasons are also why this truth was taught already in the Old Testament by God long before even the New Testament was revealed to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ.....

Please continue reading:

http://www.allmonks.com/sexual-pleasure-and-lust/

Sent to: Mike4Dogma

[After this last mail, he never again responded to me.]

-------------------------------------

ON THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND CONTRITION AND ABOUT RECEIVING FORGIVENESS WITHOUT AN ABSOLUTION

Question: The problem is all the priests are heretics. So if they cannot give an absolution, is everyone damned? Suppose the following scenario: I did not have perfect contrition without an absolution, I only had attrition, I felt bad and stuff but not perfect contrition, so would you say I was forgiven?

Answer: One of the most common reasons for that so many people choose to deny the overwhelming evidence against communicating with heretics is because they don’t believe that God will forgive them their sins without an absolution, or when it is not available. Many people obviously have many misconceptions about the Sacrament of Confession, Penance, Absolution and Contrition and what actually is necessary for obtaining salvation. The fact of the matter however, is that The Council of Trent’s decree on Justification and the Sacrament of Penance never say that perfect contrition is “so hard” or “impossible” to receive from God (for those who desire it) as many other false and fallible statements make it out to be. It also never actually said anything about that one can be saved with only imperfect contrition with an absolution. Rather, all it said is that this attrition (imperfect contrition) helps to dispose a man to receive forgiveness (perfect contrition) in the Sacrament of Confession.

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on Contrition, ex cathedra: “And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment [but not for God], It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted PREPARES a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) [imperfect contrition] cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, CONDUCT [OR LEAD] the sinner to justification, yet does it DISPOSE HIM TO OBTAIN THE GRACE OF GOD IN THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.”

As we can see, the Council of Trent infallibly defined that attrition or imperfect contrition disposes the penitent to obtain the grace of God (perfect contrition or the forgiveness of his sins) in the Sacrament of Penancewhereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice.” It never actually said that it forgives a person without perfect contrition in the Sacrament of Penance, as is clear from the above words.

To further illustrate the point that attrition only disposes the penitent to receive something, suppose we changed this sentence and added the word “satisfaction” instead of the word “attrition”. Now the sentence would go like this:

“And although this (satisfaction) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance.”

Would this sentence now mean that all one need to do in order to receive forgiveness of one’s sins in the sacrament of Penance is to perform an act of “satisfaction”? Of course not. All the quotation is saying is that it disposes the penitent to receive forgiveness in the sacrament, not what actually is needed to receive forgiveness.

According to the Council of Trent, the sacrament of Penance consists of three parts – “contrition, confession and satisfaction”and all who want to receive forgiveness of their sins must fulfill all three of these requirements – at least in desire – in order to attain justification. Even those who misinterpret this passage to say that all one need to receive the sacrament is attrition, admits that one must perform an act of confession and satisfaction as well as that one must receive an absolution from the priest – in addition to being properly disposedin order to attain justification, which shows us how they themselves prove that their false understanding of this sentence means that one needs more than just attrition to receive the sacrament of Penance.

The Council of Trent teaches that Penance, that is, “contrition, confession, and satisfaction” are inseparable parts of the Sacrament and that they are even “REQUIRED FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN”! This means that for the imperfect who are not yet justified, they may become justified by performing penance, good works and prayers in order to achieve this end – such as by making satisfaction for their sins. This is explained by The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, in the following way:

“The (quasi) matter of this sacrament [of Penance] consists of the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. THESE, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE BY GOD’S INSTITUTION REQUIRED IN THE PENITENT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN, ARE FOR THIS REASON CALLED PARTS OF PENANCE.” (Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 3, On the Parts and Fruits of This Sacrament)

So by doing penance for one’s sins, by confessing to the priest in shame, by feeling sorrow and shame before God (whom the priest represents) and for having offended God, and by praying the act of contrition, etc., — all of these things will make an unjustified man justified – provided he is of good will – and give him perfect remission of his sins from God, — the remission of his sins, which is a grace of God (obtained by obeying Him and His commandments).

But we also know that one must be rightly disposed and of good will in order to be forgiven one’s sins in the sacrament since not all absolutions, even if the priests pronounces it upon the penitent, is valid or has an effect, and deliberate unconfessed mortal sins is even a sacrilege in the Sacrament of Penance; and the priest can also refuse an absolution if he perceives that the penitent is insincere or unrepentant.

“He breathed upon His disciples, saying Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained [John 20:23].” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 1)

Hence that this absolutely proves that forgiveness is not always obtained in the Sacrament – or when one receives an absolution (if the penitent was not rightly disposed) – since a proper disposition is absolutely required in order to be forgiven and saved, and if this be lacking, one cannot be truly reconciled with God, whom one has grievously offended.

So to answer your question: No, you are not forgiven without perfect contrition, which is a sorrow that arises because it offends God who is all-loving and all-good and who do not deserve to be offended against, rather than only feeling contrition for your own sake or for the fear of punishments – as infallibly defined by Council of Trent (as we will see below).

In fact, Pope Leo X and Pope Innocent XI even directly condemned the heretical idea that says that one can be forgiven and saved with only attrition or imperfect contrition, and the interesting thing about these condemnations is that they do not say it referred only to those people who have not yet received an absolution, as if those who had received an absolution could be saved with only attrition (this false and heretical theory that many have fallen into namely says that one can be saved with only attrition with an absolution but not without an absolution).

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters (# 57), March 4, 1679: “It is probable that natural but honest imperfect sorrow for sins suffices.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Notice that the above proposition which asserted that “imperfect sorrow for sins suffices” was condemned.

Likewise, in the year 1520, Pope Leo X condemned the following proposition which asserted that “imperfect charity” is enough in order for a person to attain salvation by first going though purgatory.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (# 4), Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520: “To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.” – Condemned statement by Pope Leo X.

The same Pope also condemned another statement of Luther commonly made by so many people today, which is the heresy that says that being contrite or sorry for one’s sins is an impossibility. In fact, certain people we have talked to concerning forgiveness without receiving an absolution have even explicitly told us that if heretics cannot give an absolution in confession: this means that every one is damned in that case. But why do they say this? Because they don’t believe they can be truly sorry for their sins, just as if God would be unable or unwilling to grant them this grace – if they would just ask for it in faith or strive for it with their whole heart.

Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (# 12), Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520: “If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite... if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.” – Condemned statement by Pope Leo X.

So this statement directly condemns the idea that contrition is an impossibility. Indeed, only a faithless heretic would say that it’s “hard” or even “impossible” to feel sorry for God’s sake rather than for punishment’s sake or that one is damned without receiving an absolution, just as if loving God was an impossibility to achieve for a willing soul! Have not all the Saints as well as all the other saved people loved God and felt sorrow for having offended the all good God rather than only fearing Hell or punishments? Of course they have. Thus, it is not impossible, and it is a heresy to say it is.

God has complete and perfect knowledge of the past, present, and future, and He knew before the creation of the world that there would be times and places where Sacramental Confession would not be available. Since God is infinitely just He would not say that you must perform an act of Sacramental Confession to get to Heaven, while at the same time knowing that there will be times and places when Sacramental Confession would not be available.

Whenever you can’t go to confession for whatever the reason may be, you are to make an Act of Contrition, which must include an act of perfect contrition, and have a desire to receive the sacrament as soon as a fully Catholic priest becomes available in order to be saved, because even in times when Sacramental Confession is not available, the desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance is still required for salvation, because the Dogma that allows one to return to a state of grace without actually going to Confession with a priest requires that one must still have the desire for Sacramental Confession for his sins to be remitted.

The sacrament of Penance includes three parts – 1) contrition 2) confession and 3) satisfaction – and all who want to receive forgiveness for their sins must fulfill all three of these requirements. When a penitent makes an Act of Contrition, saying the prayer and act of contrition to the priest, this prayer must include an act of perfect contrition. If one says this prayer, but does not mean it, one is speaking falsely.

The commonly used traditional Act of Contrition prayer that one can make either to a priest or directly to God in the case a priest is not available contains both an act of imperfect and perfect contrition:

“O MY GOD, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell [imperfect contrition or attrition]; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love [perfect contrition]. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.”

So long as one is truly sorry for God’s sake when one makes this Act of Contrition, then the act is termed perfect. To also fear God or punishment does not take away the fact that one can be sorry for God’s sake. And that is why all saints have also feared God.

So contrary to what some may believe, imperfect contrition is also beneficial for the soul, even though it is not possible to be saved without perfect contrition, and that is why attrition is a part of contrition, as well as a part of the Act of Contrition prayer. The Council of Trent teaches that attrition is effected “either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment”, and this in turn shows us that attrition is wholly beneficial for the soul, and that it does not negate or take away anything from the soul:

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on Contrition, ex cathedra: “And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice.”

God Himself taught three times at the Council of Trent, once in the Fourteenth Session and twice in the Sixth Session, of what we are to do when confession is not available:

Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4, on Contrition, A.D. 1551, ex cathedra: “It sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.”

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14, on Justification, A.D. 1547, ex cathedra: “Sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted.”

Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 14, on Justification, A.D. 1547, ex cathedra: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins... but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season...”

Trent thus directly teaches that one can receive forgiveness by performing an act of perfect contrition even when the Sacrament of Confession is not available; but contrary to many misconceptions and fallible statements, the council never said this act is “hard” or “impossible” to perform. So returning your soul to a state of grace when Sacramental Confession is not available requires that one makes an act of contrition, which must include an act of perfect contrition. And perfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because they offend God while imperfect contrition is when you are sorry for your sins because of the loss of Heaven, and the pains of Hell.

Considering this definition of what perfect and imperfect contrition is, if one truly feels sorrow for having offended God and have a true sorrow for God’s sake rather than only feeling sorry because of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell and punishments, etc., THEN THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PERFECT CONTRITION ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT!

So is this grace really so “hard” to receive from God if one actually cares about God? that is, to feel sorry for your sins because they offend God rather than only feeling sorry for your sins because of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell? No, not at all, but in reality, most people don’t care about God enough nor about avoiding sin (even the smallest sin); hence that almost all people are damned and do not receive this grace from God (since they do not love Him). That almost all people are damned (Catholic or not) is a biblical fact and is confirmed by all the saints who have spoken on this topic. Hence, the issue is not about absolution, rather, the issue is about people living bad lives and that they don’t love God enough – that makes it impossible for them to be saved.

That of course means that one must do all in one’s power to avoid not only mortal sin, but also venial sin. It also means to in fact never even have a will to commit even the slightest sin that one knows to be a sin culpably or with full consent against the all good God — and now we may deduce already why most people in fact are damned. The great St. Ambrose said concerning this: “True repentance [and thus love of God] is to cease to sin [all sin, however small].”

That one must avoid the proximate occasion of sin in order to be Saved and receive Forgiveness of one’s sins from God is a certain fact of the Natural and Divine law that has always been taught by the Church and Her Saints. For instance, Blessed Pope Innocent XI during his papacy, condemned three propositions that denied this truth:

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #61, March 4, 1679: “He can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: “The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: “It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor.” – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

For instance, in order to help people avoid occasions of falling into sin, we often tell them about the absolute need to surf the internet without images on and with an adblock (which means that they can’t see images at all when surfing various websites or any internet ads) so as to avoid innumerable occasions of falling into sin, not only venial sins, but also mortal sins of impurity.

Now, many people claiming to be Catholic and worshiping God and desiring forgiveness of their sins and enter Heaven strangely don’t care anything about this advice, and even chose to ignore it because of their perverse and evil will and attachment to images. Now if they really wanted forgiveness for their sins and cared anything about God, and to please Him, and not to offend Him, they obviously would not surf the internet with images on and thus expose themselves to innumerable bad images of sensual women or men tempting them everyday to fall into occasions of sin against the all good God.

It should go without saying, but when images is necessary or needed for what one is doing, then it is lawful to surf with them on for as long time as it is necessary — provided it is not a danger to one’s soul and the site is not bad. But how often do we need to see images at all times? Never. Only at a particular time or occasion, such as for a work, or when reading some article, but other than that we have no reason or necessity to have them on, and therefore, they must be off.

And yes, it is a sin to refuse to follow this advice since it is virtually impossible to escape bad and immodest images and commercials of men or women tempting you every day when surfing the internet (and the same of course applies to watching most media too, which is why we recommend people never to watch movable images and that they only listen to the audio). Only a condemned person not fearing God or sin at all would refuse to follow this good advice that helps him avoid falling into sexual temptations and sins everyday.

“Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

(Please see this section for some more quotes on the issue and on the help and steps on how to block images in your web-browser and surf the internet with an adblock: http://www.allmonks.com/the-natural-law/#How-to-control-your-eyes)

Those people who choose to ignore this advice despite being told not to do so, infallibly prove the point (i.e., the above explanation of why most people are damned).

Most people just don’t care about God enough nor fear Him enough to avoid all sin and the occasions of falling into obvious sin, nor do they love Him more than they love their own perverse will or self-love – which is the direct reason for their indifferent lifestyle; neither do they care enough about God so as to avoid even what they obviously know will lead them into possible sin.

Hence that most people are damned and always have been. So the only reason it would be hard for someone to be forgiven his sins and be saved is if he don’t love God enough, fear God enough, nor trust God enough with his whole hearttrust and love, such as believing in Him and that He will forgive you if you do what you must—and that He hears all your prayers and grants all your prayers that are good for you, such as all prayers for the grace of attaining forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, it is only hard to be saved for the bad — and not for the good souls.

Please also read the article THE AMAZING LIES, HERESIES AND CONTRADICTIONS OF PETER DIMOND CAUGHT ON TAPE EXPOSED (link to section)

Please read this article on the question of receiving forgiveness of one's sins without an absolution from a priest in today's apostasy (link to section);

Please read this section on Catholics who had no access to Catholic priests and avoided non-Catholic priests (link to section);

Please read our main article against receiving the sacraments from heretics and prayer in communion with heretics (link to section);

Related articles:

www.allmonks.com
Free DVDs, Articles and Books
FREE DVDs & VIDEOS
WATCH & DOWNLOAD ALL OUR DVDs & VIDEOS FOR FREE!