Like preserving the ritual and trinitarian and incarnational and ascetic and so forth doctrine of the Latin Church which certainly is wityhin, and as certainly is not alone there, the Catholic Church?
But at the same time:
- teaching that one should have ecumenic fellowship with Jews and Moslems (Novus Ordo problem, also current with Indult Mass);
- teaching that papacy is essential, de jure divino, a necessary part of the indefectibility of the visible church and at same time saying the last popes have had to be, not disobeyed but "not obeyed in their errors", which makes indefectibility rest on bishops, like Lefèbvre and Castro-Mayer, and at same time saying someone who says Orthodox (usually so called nowadays) are right about each bishop succeeding Saint Peter is heretic (SSPX problem);
- teaching that papacy is essential, de jure divino, a necessary part of the indefectibility of the visible church and at same time saying their have been no popes since 1958, or that those since 1958 have been material not formal popes (like a corpse is materially but not formally a man - something Melchior Cano, cited by St Robert Bellarmine says is the case of a non-manifest heretic, someone heretic only in his heart), and yet saying someone who claims the petrine indefectibility of the visible Church has been there through bishops rather than popes because that is a possibility is a heretic? (general sedisvacantist and sedeimpeditist problem);
- teaching that sedisvacantism is schismatic and sspx heretic because in conflict with petrine indefectibility of the church, while at same time saying laymen could elect a pope without any bishop at the time and church could lack a pope between 1958 and 1990 (bawdenite problem or one of them, when I took contact with him, he refused to directly confirm my benevolent take on his final stance in wheat flour controversy);
- teaching that papacy is not essential in the same sense as episcopacy, but at same time teaching that rejection of "filioque" (which is Athanasian), "immaculate conception and augustinian view of original sin" (which is Palamasic), "azymes" (which have Pauline and Western Traditional support), "created grace" (which is a misleading shortcut of the Tridentine definition of Sanctifying Grace), are all essential, and adding recently a rejection of Thomist scholasticism (which is certainly licit), Natural Law (which is part of the deposit of faith, see Romans 1!) "according to some of their theologers" but in reality according to the imposed view through secret exaction against at least one faithful, me: because when I was with them, I am sure I was excommunicated;
- and, all of them, at the same time, refusing me real fellowship such as one where I could go to the sacraments, marry, save my body as well as my soul, all of them at the same time refusing to expose themselves in arguments about my writings, and all of them praying, if not constantly, at least repeatedly that I get corrected and then come back to them after correcting myself, rather than try to correct me?
- and all or most of them counting me guilty of sins they dared not accuse me of, counting my confessions as incomplete on account of my not regretting this, that or sundry act or habit which some Jew, Moslem or Freemason accused me of, and praying that I shall be corrected from things that I had already ceased doing or never committed at all before they prayed so? Because that, if any, is certainly an error about Church Discipline.
God made a deal with Satan about Job. Then God chased Satan back to hell when he raised Job from misfortunes and whatever secret sins he may have committed in his heart. God had the power and the authority to do that. But a Church man who thinks he has power or authority to make deals with diverse synagogues of Satan, diverse religions which for uncatechised children growing up in them are maybe at best incomplete religion, but which for a grown up in them usually implies a false religion, with diverse secret and discrete societies like Freemasons or Neotemplars or Alcoholics Anonymous or Associations like Psychiatrists or Policemen or even Family Members of me or whatever and with whomever was the deal, such a Church man is certainly overstepping the power God gave his Church.
I am not a drunkard. I have committed acts of drunkenness, but few. And between my last commenced Greek Orthodox Confession without absolution, Pentecost Monday 2009 and my first SSPX Confession late summer or early autumn same year, not even one, unless you count getting a bit tipsy with the people you are eating and drinking with. Any Church man who wants me to reject all alcohol for good is making unwarranted and human respect motivated concessions to Pharisees or Delphic Pythians. There are alcoholics who when drinking too much anyway for a week or two avoid eating in order to avoid a nasty effect of eating with too much drink. There is also people seeing me "not eating" who were simply not seing me when I ate, or whose lies have even stopped me from getting food. But denying myself food for hours in order to stay writing and reading an a library, or eating less to avoid some temptations of the flesh (I am not married as yet) is a totally different story.
I am not a paederast or homoerast. I am not a psychic getting news from the devil about who prays for what in my life, but it has only been glaringly obvious that the church men I confided in prayed against my success without telling me. And in doing so betrayed my trust. Nor were they protecting me from any real threat of excommunication, since I have not made any real promise of perpetual chastity even in private. I measured each word. Not any real promise - because one of my worries after converting and not getting immediately to a convent or monastery was I had prayed about it, twice. Soon after conversion I regretted the prayer but thought myself obliged to at least try postulating. And was year after year forbidden to do that, therefore obliged to remain unmarried till later. Of perpetual chastity - there are two promises I would go into if my confessor asked me to be precise. But perpetual chastity or any exact synonym thereof was NOT in either of them. The first of them even excluded it.
A man is not obliged to go to communion in a mass where he thinks the priest has poisoned the Host, and similarily a man is not obliged to confess to priests whom he thinks will admonish him and conditionally absolve him in a way as to guarantee he either makes a kind of conversion to which he is not obliged and which he is not likely to make honestly either, even if bothered during confession, or to remain bound in sin. Any priest who does not want me to suspect that of him is very welcome to have a talk with me about my situation before I confess to him. It was when Fr Wilhelm Imach OMI refused to so talk with me (he might have suspected I was giving him an unwanted greeting from a Franciscan Tertiary who could be bothersome but who was my friend) but did talk to my non-catholic grandmother that going to confession became morally impossible to me.
This post was supposed to be about avoiding errorists? Well, I thank Dr Piper, a Lutheran and thus ex-coreligionist of mine for the word and for the reminder it is necessary. But that includes avoiding communicatio in sacris with Protestants. Including Lutherans and Anglicans. He was right in saying that belonging to Orthodoxy is a divine Command: according to all Church History I know it would have been for centuries impossible if Orthodoxy as of First Christians coincided with Protestant rejections of Catholic doctrine. It became a post about my difficulty of finding anyone who is not an errorist, at least in Church discipline. It is also difficult to seem avoiding them if one's confessor or future such will take anyone's word for me being in communion with anyone. And I have stumbled about too.
I honour St Louis IX as a real saint of the real Christian Church. I do not consider he committed a sin in limiting usury rates for Jewish moneylenders. I do not consider he committed a sin in burning the Talmud, but of course not the Torah. I do not consider he committed a sin in expelling the Jews from France. I do not think he had anything to regret on that account. I do not consider he committed a sin in warring and battling against Mahometan armies. I do consider the Templars who in a battle stayed on spot when he ordered them to go on (unless I should misremember this) committed a sin of treason, due to which the battle was lost.
April 21, day of St Anselm
Y o o L 2012