The Schismatics Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center

The Schismatics Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center

- Anti-Sedevacantists who act like Sedevacantists-

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

IN THIS ARTICLE:

INTRODUCTION

BRO. ANDRE OF THE ST. BENEDICT CENTER

BISHOP FULHAM

BISHOP FULHAM’S CONFERENCE AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM

BISHOP FULHAM ON THE PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS TO ST. PETER IN THE PRIMACY

BISHOP FULHAM SAYS NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE HOLY SEE AND IS CONDEMNED OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH

DOES BISHOP FULHAM BELIEVE IN THE SALVATION DOGMA?

BISHOP FULHAM PERVERTS CHRIST’S TEACHING ON THE CHAIR OF MOSES

BISHOP FULHAM ON THE CHURCH IS ONE, STRAW MEN AND LAUGHING AT CERTAIN SEDEVACANTISTS

BISHOP FULHAM WAS DELUDED BY THE DEVIL

THEIR “POPE” DOESN’T EVEN BELIEVE IN THE PAPACY: RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLICS CANNOT HOLD VATICAN I AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE “FORM” OF THE PRIMACY AND AS BINDING ON ALL

Introduction

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“One who after baptism… rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

As stated in the article on Bishop Williamson, schism can be either refusing communion with a true Pope (not an Antipope) or refusing communion with the members of the Church who are in communion with the Pope. This can be manifested by refusing to operate under the authority of the hierarchy and Bishops which you deem to constitute the Catholic hierarchy.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): “He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:50)

St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, (A.D. 386): “Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1371a)

A few weeks ago I discussed the position of the SSPX, which acknowledges the Vatican II “Popes” as true Popes but operates completely outside of their authority and outside of the authority of the Novus Ordo Bishops. I showed that the position of the SSPX is obstinately schismatic. I also pointed out that the Society of St. Pius X could have been confused in good faith about the fullness of what was happening with regard to the Novus Ordo hierarchy for a certain period time – perhaps a number of years. When the Vatican II apostasy broke, they justifiably wanted to resist it. The full ramifications of what was occurring were not very clear to them. However, after decades, when the dust finally settled, the leaders of the SSPX had to examine their position and come to the realization that they have no justification for operating independently of the Novus Ordo hierarchy if the Novus Ordo hierarchy is, in fact, Catholic. The only reason that they could be independent of the Novus Ordo hierarchy is if the Novus Ordo hierarchy has lost the Faith, is not Catholic, is outside the Church and holds no authority.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

But the SSPX, after decades of apostasy taught by the Vatican II sect, and after decades to examine its untenable position, still obstinately maintains that the apostate Novus Ordo hierarchy is the true Catholic hierarchy! Yet, it refuses to put itself under their authority and operate in communion with them. The SSPX’s official position is without any doubt obstinately schismatic. They are operating outside of communion with the hierarchy they deem to be the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The exact same words apply to many other priests and laypersons, including Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center.

BRO. ANDRE OF THE ST. BENEDICT CENTER

The St. Benedict Center (New Hampshire) – which claims to uphold the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation (more on this later) – obstinately recognizes the Vatican II Antipopes as true Popes. They also accept the New Mass. The members of the St. Benedict Center don’t attend the invalid New Mass themselves, but they hold that one cannot be told that he is forbidden to attend the New Mass since it has been approved by their “Pope.” I find it interesting that they won’t go to the New Mass themselves, but obstinately hold that others can go. Their position is basically: “I won’t eat the poisoned pie, but you can.” In a talk I heard on audio a few years ago, Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center denounced the position of those who say that it is completely forbidden to attend the New Mass. Bro. Andre has also repeatedly denounced the position of the sedevacantists (those who recognize that the Vatican II Antipopes cannot be true Popes since they are heretics) as a denial of the Catholic Faith. Why do I mention all of this? I mention it because it’s now been confirmed that Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center is pursuing ordination outside of Benedict XVI’s hierarchy from the independent Bishop Fulham!

Why is this significant? The significance should be obvious to those who understand what was pointed out in the article on Bishop Williamson. Since Bro. Andre and the St. Benedict Center obstinately and vigorously maintain (in the face of arguments and facts) that Benedict XVI is a true Pope and that his Novus Ordo hierarchy constitutes the true Catholic hierarchy, they must, of course, operate under their authority and in communion with them. To be independent of them is schismatic. But due to the fact that Bro. Andre now wants to be ordained – and perhaps even because he doubts the validity of the new rites of ordination and Episcopal Consecration which his “Church” uses – Bro. Andre is shunning all the Bishops and Seminaries in full communion with his “Pope” and Bishops to pursue ordination outside his hierarchy from a completely independent Bishop Fulham who is not approved by his “Church” or the Bishop with whom he professes to hold communion!

CAN YOU SAY “HYPOCRITE OF THE YEAR”? This shows us that Bro. Andre is without any doubt a schismatic and a hypocrite. This is in addition to the fact that he is a complete heretic for professing communion with the Novus Ordo sect, which completely rejects the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith. Yes, Bro. Andre, you will continue to tell us that you are not a sedevacantist – and continue to condemn it – while you completely shun your “hierarchy” and all the Seminaries in full communion with your “Pope.” You will continue to tell us that you are not a sedevacantist while you prove the sedevacantist position by your own actions. You condemn yourself out of your own mouth.

The heretical St. Benedict Center thinks they can have the best-of-both-worlds or, rather, what it likes from each “Church.” They want to be able to profess communion with the Novus Ordo sect and Benedict XVI and say that they have a “Pope” (that’s great assurance for their heretical benefactors) and also denounce those who correctly hold the sedevacantist position. But when it comes to the realization that this sect they profess communion with (the false Vatican II sect under Benedict XVI) is actually not Catholic and is using suspect rites – and when they remember that a person cannot actually function as a Catholic priest inside this false sect of the Vatican II “Church” under Benedict XVI (as proven by the fact that Bro. Andre is shunning the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy to pursue ordination from an independent source) – they run to get the traditional rites from a completely independent Bishop who is not under their hierarchy. This is just stunning and outrageous hypocrisy from blinded heretics who have denied Jesus Christ by professing communion with the Vatican II Church. They prove the sedevacantist position by demonstrating that it is not possible to operate as a Catholic priest under the authority of Benedict XVI’s “Church.” The St. Benedict Center may find their contradictory, heretical, compromising, schismatic and hypocritical position to be convenient here on earth, but they won’t get away with this denial of the Catholic Faith before the Judgment Seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

But now to Bishop Fulham, the man to whom Andre is running to get ordained.

BISHOP FULHAM

Bishop Fulham is an independent Bishop with a position on the Vatican II “Popes” which is almost exactly the same as the SSPX. He was a convinced sedevacantist, having been ordained in a sedevacantist Seminary. He then received Episcopal Consecration from a non-Catholic Bishop Simmons, whom he falsely identifies as a “traditional Catholic” on his website. (Thus, it should be kept in mind that Bro. Andre of the St. Benedict Center, while professing union with Benedict XVI, by pursuing ordination from Bishop Fulham, is not only going outside of the authority of Benedict XVI’s hierarchy but also to a man who was made a Bishop at the hands of a notorious schismatic – a man who didn’t even profess to be Roman Catholic.)

Here is what Bishop Fulham wrote a few years ago by way of an introduction to a copy of the Bull cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV:

Bishop Fulham, as a sedevacantist: "How can it be that a heretic sit upon the throne of St. Peter? It could not possibly happen - reason tells us that much. Theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales confirm it, and here in this Papal Document that comes down to us four centuries later, Pope Paul IV tells us the same thing. Whilst the legislation here in question is most certainly modified by the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (Code of Canon Law), the possibility of a Papal election being invalid because of a previous defection from the Faith is upheld. In this regard, paragraph 6 below is of specific interest."

Recently, however, Bishop Fulham completely changed his position; he is now a convinced anti-sedevacantist. He now promotes pictures of the apostates John Paul II and Benedict XVI all over his website. He even states:

Bishop Fulham: “…the young Karol Wojtyla [later, John Paul II] formed a deep attachment to another Mother, Our Blessed Lady. I have no reason but to believe his devotion to Mary is very deep.”

Bishop Fulham tells us that John Paul II, the man who consistently endorsed false religions of the devil and who repeatedly taught that we shouldn’t convert schismatics, etc., etc., etc., had a “very deep” devotion to the Mother of God. This is a blasphemous insult to Our Lady.

BISHOP FULHAM’S CONFERENCE AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM

Recently, Bishop Fulham gave a talk against sedevacantism. I will now respond to the points he made and show that his position is contrary to Catholic teaching.

BISHOP FULHAM ON THE PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS TO ST. PETER IN THE PRIMACY

Fulham first quotes a canon from Vatican I which declares that St. Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church. This canon is also quoted and misapplied by Bro. Andre. They both consider it to be a death-blow to sedevacantism.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. “If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.” (Denz 1825)

After quoting this dogmatic canon, Fulham summarizes it by telling us that this declares that we “will always have a Pope.” The problem for Fulham is that the canon does not say that we will “always have a Pope.” To summarize it that way is inaccurate and, since he is obstinate, very dishonest. Nevertheless, Fulham says again and again that Vatican I said “we will always have a Pope.” Fulham even goes so far as to say: “If anyone says that we will not always have a Pope, let him be anathema.”

The reader should immediately notice the grave defect in Bishop Fulham’s argument. The reader should immediately see that Fulham has erred in understanding this canon; for, if what he said were true, then the Catholic Church already defected OVER 200 TIMES. It is a fact that there has been no Pope over 200 times in Church history. It happens every time a Pope dies. It is called a papal interregnum or a vacancy of the Holy See and it has lasted for more than three years.

We can see from this fact alone that Bishop Fulham has misrepresented and misapplied this dogmatic canon. After receiving this correction, Bishop Fulham or Bro. Andre may reply: “well, it means that there wouldn’t be long periods without a Pope.” Sorry, but the canon doesn’t say anything of the sort. In order to defend their flawed understanding of this canon, they literally have to rewrite it and add their own stipulations to justify their assertions. This shows that their understanding of the canon is flawed.

Words and distinctions are very important. Understanding distinctions and words can often be the very difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. Take Romans 3:20, for example:

Romans 3:20-“Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him.”

It was Martin Luther’s failure to make a proper distinction about this passage that caused him to fall into one of his principal heresies – justification by faith alone. In Romans 3, St. Paul is talking about the works of the Old Law (circumcision, etc.). No one could be justified by these works. St. Paul was not talking about all works in general; for we know that “by works a man is justified; and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24) But Luther’s failure to make this distinction was the very heresy that served – and continues to serve in the lives of millions upon millions of Protestants – as one of the most evil rejections of Christ’s truth in history.

Similarly, Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre have also obstinately failed to make a proper distinction and have corrupted what the canon of Vatican I teaches. Their failure to make a proper distinction has led them into an interpretation of the canon which literally would show that the Church has already defected over 200 times. The canon from Vatican I condemns those who deny “that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.” This, as we have seen, does not mean and cannot mean that we will always have a Pope. That is why it doesn’t say that “we will always have a Pope.” Everyone, including Fulham and Andre, admits that we didn’t have a Pope just a few weeks ago when Antipope John Paul II died. But what does the canon mean?

In understanding it, we should remember that there are schismatics (the Eastern “Orthodox”) who hold that St. Peter was given the primacy over the universal Church by Jesus Christ, but that the primacy over the universal Church stopped with St. Peter. They hold that the full-blown force of the primacy doesn’t devolve to the Popes, even though they succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome. Again: the “Orthodox” schismatics would admit that the Bishops of Rome are successors of St. Peter in a certain way because they succeeded him as Bishops of Rome, but not successors with the same primacy over the universal Church which St. Peter held in his life. They reject that there is a perpetual succession of that power of St. Peter’s primacy. This is the heresy that is the subject of the canon above. This heresy – which denies that a Pope is the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy perpetually (that is, every time there is a Pope until the end of time, he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority St. Peter possessed) – is precisely what this canon condemns.

When we understand this one clearly sees the meaning of this canon. This is emphasized at the end by the words “or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy” let him be anathema. The canon is not declaring that we will have a Pope at all times or that there won’t be gaps, as we have had. The meaning of the canon is clear from what it says. It condemns those who deny that Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy – that is, those who deny that every time there is a Pope until the end of time he is a successor in the same primacy, with the same authority that St. Peter possessed. The interpretation of this canon by Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre is completely false and historically ridiculous.

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly was an eminent theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I. Writing after Vatican I, he taught that God could leave the Church without a Pope for over 35 years. Here is a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great Western Schism:

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882)

An interregnum is a period in which the Church has no Pope, a sede vacante period. Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His Church. The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking about began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory XI and ended essentially in 1414 when the Council of Constance assembled. That would be a 36-year interregnum!

Though Fr. O’Reilly was not a Pope or a Doctor of the Church, the following should demonstrate that he was one of the most eminent theologians of the 19^th Century:

“Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him (Fr. O’Reilly) as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850. Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury. Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth. He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation. The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome… At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking ‘provinces’ of the Society – that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and other divisions of the United States. In short, Father O’ Reilly was widely recognized as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.”

It is obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting the Vatican II Antipopes, hold the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See. In fact, on page 287 of his book Fr. O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” (Fr. O’Reilly, p. 287.)

This is an excellent point. He explains that if the Great Western Schism had never occurred, Catholics would say that such a situation (three competing claimants to the Papacy) would be impossible. But it did happen, and we have no guarantee that worse things that are not excluded by divine promises won’t happen. There is nothing contrary to indefectibility in saying that we haven’t had a Pope since the death of Pope Pius XII 1958. There is everything contrary to the indefectibility of the Catholic Church in asserting that true Popes could promulgate Vatican II, the New Mass and deny that non-Catholics need to be converted, as the Vatican II Antipopes have done. Leaving the Church without a Pope for an extended period of the Great Apostasy seems to be the punishment of choice inflicted by God on our generation for the wickedness of the world.

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

Both Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre prove that there is no Pope by completely shunning the approval of the hierarchy of the Antipope in Rome. In the 12^th century, Antipope Anacletus II – who reigned eight years in Rome while rivaling the true Pope, Innocent II – gained the majority of the Cardinals, the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, and the entire populace of Rome as his supporters. Pope Paul IV also solemnly teaches that if a heretic were elected Pope the election would be absolutely invalid even despite the later acceptance by the entire Church, including all the Cardinals.

BISHOP FULHAM SAYS NO ONE CAN JUDGE THE HOLY SEE AND IS CONDEMNED OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH

In his Conference against Sedevacantism, Bishop Fulham also mentions that no one can judge the Holy See. For special effect on his audience, he even quotes the Latin of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which declares that the First See cannot be judged. Yes, this means that the Holy See (the Office of St. Peter and the declarations emanating from that office) cannot be judged, such as the Council of Florence, Trent, etc. It means that if Paul VI was the Pope, as Fulham and Andre assert, then they cannot judge Vatican II since this was solemnly promulgated by their “Pope” from the Chair of St. Peter.

EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II ENDS WITH THESE WORDS SHOWING PAUL VI’S SOLEMN APPROVAL:

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

Antipope Paul VI again declares that Vatican II is to be Religiously Observed

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Vatican II Council closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

Nevertheless, Bishop Fulham judges his “Holy See” by declaring that Vatican II, an “ecumenical Council” solemnly promulgated by his “Pope” (Paul VI), is, and I’m quoting, a “Council of errors.” A General Council promulgated and confirmed by the “apostolic authority” of a true Pope cannot contain error. Fulham’s position is a rejection of Papal Infallibility and a rejection of the indefectibility of the Holy See.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:

"And since the sentiment of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: 'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church' [Mt. 16:18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated." (Denz. 1833)

DOES BISHOP FULHAM BELIEVE IN THE SALVATION DOGMA?

A few weeks ago I called Bishop Fulham in an attempt to discuss these matters with him. My hope was that he would change his position. We spoke cordially for a few minutes and he asked me my name. I told him: “Bro. Peter Dimond.” He immediately hung up the telephone and that was the end. I must admit that I was a bit frustrated that he hung up on me because I wanted to be able to bring forward certain facts and ask him certain questions. But, alas, I didn’t get that opportunity because of his cowardly action.

Before he hung up, however, he indicated to me that he believed that only baptized Catholics could be saved, which I found surprising considering how few priests hold this dogma today. But the fact is that he doesn’t really hold this dogma because he believes that people can be Catholic and reject it, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. On his website, Fulham also has Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics wherein Lefebvre teaches that souls can be saved in false religions.

Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that...”

Even though they claim to believe in the salvation dogma, neither Bishop Fulham nor Bro. Andre really holds it. This is because each one holds that Benedict XVI and John Paul II are part of the Church even though they both reject this dogma. So, it must be said clearly that the St. Benedict Center doesn’t hold that Outside the Church There is No Salvation is a dogma that must be accepted to be inside the Catholic Church. Bishop Fulham also proves that he has no Faith whatsoever when he promotes the complete apostate John Paul II whom he knows endorsed false religions and engaged in acts of idolatry.

BISHOP FULHAM PERVERTS CHRIST’S TEACHING ON THE CHAIR OF MOSES

Matthew 23:2-4 “[Then Jesus spoke] The scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the Chair of Moses. All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

This is a passage of scripture that certain non-sedevacantist “traditionalists,” such as Bro. Andre, like to use against the sedevacantist position. They try to say that they are disobeying the aberrations and bad conduct (such as the Assisi event) of the “Church leaders” and “the Pope,” but they are submitting to their office, just like Christ said you should not follow the example of the Pharisees but respect their office. But there is a fundamental flaw in this argument, besides the fact that this instruction was in reference to the Old Law.

Notice that Our Lord tells them to resist their bad conduct, but accept all of their teaching.

Matthew 23:2-4 “[Then Jesus spoke] The scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the Chair of Moses. All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

This means that you must observe their teaching and instructions. The very point of the sedevacantists is that the “teaching” of the Vatican II “Popes” is heretical and cannot be observed by a Catholic. The very “traditionalists” who use this passage, including Bishop Fulham and Bro. Andre, admit the same. They admit that they cannot observe and must reject what is authoritatively taught by the Vatican II “Popes.” For instance, they cannot observe the encyclical teaching of the Vatican II “Popes” or the heretical teachings of Vatican II. In fact, notice that Paul VI, in promulgating the Council which these non-sedevacantist independent “traditionalists” reject, used the same word as Our Lord:

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS..Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

Paul VI said that all the faithful must “religiously observe” everything decided at Vatican II. So, if you believe that Paul VI was the Pope and want to use Matthew 23:2-4, then you must accept Vatican II.

Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:

“...WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY… WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL...”

Matthew 23:2-4 “[Then Jesus spoke] The scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the Chair of Moses. All things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

But these “traditionalists” admit that they cannot observe what these men teach. They admit that their teaching is the very thing they must resist – not just their conduct. This refutes their argument and proves that Matthew 23:2-4 does not bear on this question. However, Matthew 23:2-4 does indirectly illustrate the truth of the sedevacantist argument because it shows us that God would not require us to be obedient to those whose teaching cannot be followed because it is heretical and would lead us to hell. This is why all the Doctors of the Church teach that manifest heretics lose all jurisdiction.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

BISHOP FULHAM ON THE CHURCH IS ONE, STRAW MEN AND LAUGHING AT CERTAIN SEDEVACANTISTS

In his talk, Bishop Fulham correctly noted that there is only one Church. He said this in the context of those who say that there is a Novus Ordo “Church” and a traditional Church. He pointed out that there is a major theological problem at the heart of this idea and he is absolutely right. Bishop Fulham can see that the position of the heretics such as Fr. Wathen and Fr. Bitzer – who hold that the Vatican II Church is a non-Catholic sect not in communion with the true Church even though they recognize its head as the Pope – contradicts the truth that the Church is one. In truth, however, Bishop Fulham holds the same position. He operates as a Bishop, carries out ordinations, confirmations, etc. outside of his own “Church.” He also seemed to contradict his own statement that there “is only one Church” at the end of the talk by comforting people that he’s not “leading anyone into the Novus Ordo Church.”

In his talk, Bishop Fulham fielded a question from the audience about the CMRI’s position on Benedict XVI. The person asking the question mentioned that even the CMRI (which claims to be sedevacantist) seems hopeful about Benedict XVI. I don’t know if this is true, but this is the question that was asked. The questioner then mentioned that the CMRI would take a wait-and-see approach with Benedict XVI. Bishop Fulham responded by pointing out that such an idea is pure Protestantism. He is right on this. Either Benedict XVI is a Catholic and the Pope and must be accepted or he is not and must be rejected. The teaching of the Church is that he must be rejected as completely invalid (Pope Paul IV) because he was a manifest apostate at the time of the election. One cannot say: “well, I’ll see how it goes and if I like what he says then I’ll accept him.”

Bishop Fulham then noted that many traditionalists just “sift everything,” taking what they want and rejecting what they don’t. He noted that this kind of attitude is Protestant. He then said that he’s not “picking what” he wants to believe; he accepts the whole thing. Sorry Bishop Fulham, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth. You reject the New Mass and Vatican II, the official liturgy and teaching of the sect with which you profess to hold communion. Thus, in these words we simply see again that Bishop Fulham has condemned himself out of his own mouth and denounced his own position as “sifting” and Protestant.

Near the end of his talk, Bishop Fulham resorts to bringing up the favorite straw man of non-sedevacantists. A straw man is a position that is attributed to someone that he doesn’t hold. It is used by heretics, false prophets and illogical persons to deceive people, so that when they smash the straw man (the position that the person doesn’t hold) it appears to the unwary as if they are smashing the person’s argument, when they aren’t. Fulham brings up the case of those whackos that have elected themselves Pope. This reminds me of an issue of This Rock (the apostate organ of Catholic Answers). They featured a caricature of one of these men and called it: “Do-it-yourself Popes.”

Almost none of the sedevacantists take these schismatic Antipopes seriously, but Fulham brings them up because he can use it as a cheap shot against the sedevacantist argument. Fulham begins to mock these home-made Antipopes, and everyone starts laughing: “hahaha…haha..haha…” WHAT THEY FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT THEY ARE LAUGHING AT THEMSELVES. If I recall correctly, Fulham mentioned in his talk that some of his parishioners travel over an hour to attend his church. So, while they are mocking these people, they have traveled well out of their way – some more than an hour – TO AVOID EVERY SINGLE CHURCH IN COMMUNION WITH THEIR “POPE”! They cannot find a single church under their “Pope” in their diocese to attend and they avoid them all like the plague, to great inconvenience to themselves, while at the same time they mock the sedevacantist position. They are simply mocking themselves, showing their own inconsistency and proving the sedevacantist position. What’s truly a joke is that none of these schismatic elect-yourself Antipopes is nearly as heretical and blatantly non-Catholic as the man they regard as the Pope, Antipope Benedict XVI.

BISHOP FULHAM WAS DELUDED BY THE DEVIL

Bishop Fulham mentioned something that was very interesting in the course of his talk. He mentioned that what made him “wake up” and become a non-sedevacantist were two quotations. One was from John XXIII and one was from Benedict XVI. These were two quotations on the Papacy from John XXIII and Benedict XVI in which they distinguish between the Office of the Papacy and the shortcomings of the man who holds it. What happened to Bishop Fulham is exactly what I discussed in the article: Pope Pius VI on Ambiguity and the Deceptive Methods of Benedict XVI.

Fulham read some of these conservative lines in Benedict XVI and was swept away. Since he was not of good will and had no true Faith rooted in the infallible dogmas of the Church, he didn’t have the Faith to accept that wicked heretics often say very true things. He blocked the heresies out of his mind and began to question his own Faith and position. He was lured back to the false Church. Like so many other victims of Benedict XVI, he could not believe that he would really be an evil rejecter of Catholic teaching when he appears in so many of his lines to be devoted to it. He probably said to himself: “how could he be evil when he says this? He couldn’t really be a deliberate rejecter of the Faith. I must be mistaken.” Fulham took the bait – hook, line and sinker, because he is of bad will. And that is why he is now promoting all over his heretical website pictures of these men who are complete apostates who praise and endorse false religions of the devil and who totally reject the necessity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith for salvation. Bishop Fulham was deluded by the devil. (He now promotes conservative lines of the apostate Benedict XVI all over his website.)

The same thing happened to Michael Davies. The heretic Michael Davies was so taken with the conservative passages in Ratzinger’s writings that he even approached the editor of The Remnant and asked him to stop issuing any criticism of Ratzinger! This was the devil in Michael Davies. And when another man pointed out that there are clear heresies in Ratzinger’s writings, Davies got so upset that he called him a “Protestant.”

Since they both condemn the sedevacantist position, no Catholic should receive the sacraments from Bishop Fulham or Bro. Andre if he does get ordained. I will close this article by quoting from Benedict XVI’s book Principles of Catholic Theology. In this book, Benedict XVI (as “Cardinal” Ratzinger) denies that schismatics are bound to even believe in the Papacy or Vatican I because the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Popes wasn’t even held in the First Millennium, according to him. This just shows us what kind of blinded heretics Fulham and Andre are; they are demanding that Catholics recognize as “Pope” a man who doesn’t even believe in the Papacy or that all Christians are bound to accept the Papacy.

RATZINGER LISTS THE POSITION THAT PROTESTANTS AND EASTERN SCHISMATICS SHOULD BE CONVERTED AND BLUNTLY REJECTS IT

On page 197 of his book, Ratzinger lists the whole range of positions with regard to “ecumenical” dialogue with the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics. In reading Ratzinger’s list of the “maximum” demands, one can see how simple it is: there is nothing to dialogue about because they need to convert! But we see that this is not what he or ecumenism wants at all.

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear to be the real solution to the problem. This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from this, but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it. As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way. Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted to the Catholic Faith (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”). He specifically rejects it as the way to unity. This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic!

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:

“… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:

“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

RATZINGER SAYS THAT CATHOLICS CANNOT HOLD VATICAN I AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE “FORM” OF THE PRIMACY AND AS BINDING ON ALL

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.”

This means that all Christians are not bound to believe in the Papacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870! This means that the “Orthodox” schismatics are free to reject the Papacy! This is a blatant denial of Vatican Council I.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827)

Further, notice that Ratzinger admits that Paul VI’s symbolic gestures with the schismatic Patriarch “were an attempt to express precisely this” – that is to say, his gestures (such as kneeling before the representative of the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras) expressed that the schismatics don’t have to believe in the Papacy and Vatican I! Consider this a smashing vindication of all that we have said (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/) with regard to John Paul II’s incessant gestures toward the schismatics: giving them relics; giving them donations; praising their “Churches”; sitting on equal chairs with them; signing common declarations with them; lifting the excommunications against them.

We pointed out again and again that these actions alone (not even considering his other statements) constituted a teaching that the schismatics don’t have to accept the dogma of the Papacy. Countless false traditionalists and members of the Novus Ordo denied this and tried to explain these gestures away as either merely scandalous but not heretical or something else; but here we have Ratzinger – now Benedict XVI, the new “head” of the Vatican II Church – admitting “precisely” what we said. This is a smashing vindication, and a crushing blow to the claims of the Vatican II sect… and it gets worse.

RATZINGER BLUNTLY DENIES VATICAN I AND THE DOGMA THAT POPES HAVE SUPREME JURISDICTION

For long sections of his book, Ratzinger engages in detailed discussions of issues dealing with the Eastern “Orthodox” (the schismatics), Luther, the Protestants, etc. These discussions are fascinating for our purposes, since they constitute a veritable position paper of his on these topics. In his discussion concerning the “Orthodox,” one discovers that he doesn’t even believe in the dogma of the Papacy. It is important to remember that the Eastern Schismatics (the so-called “Orthodox”) often readily admit that the Popes are the successors of St. Peter as Bishops of Rome. Many of the “Orthodox” also say that the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is “the first among equals” with a “primacy of honor”; but they deny – and in this consists their chief heresy and schism – that the Popes have a primacy of supreme jurisdiction from Christ to rule the entire Church.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics and schismatics:

“Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.”

Ratzinger discusses the position of the schismatics, which rejects the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Popes, and here is what he says:

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch] did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”

This is an astounding and explicit denial of the dogma of the Papacy and the infallible canon below! He announces the position of the schismatic Patriarch, which acknowledges no primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Pope, and he not only tells us that the position of the schismatic is acceptable (as we saw already), but that the schismatic position may in fact be the true position on the Bishop of Rome! In other words, the Papacy (the supreme jurisdiction of the Popes over the universal Church by the institution of Christ as successors of St. Peter) may not exist at all! This is an astounding, incredible and huge heresy!

The fact that this man now claims to be the Pope when he doesn’t even believe in the Papacy is surely one of the greatest frauds in human history. Those who obstinately hold that this non-Catholic is the Pope assist in perpetuating that monumental fraud.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)

RATZINGER DENIES THAT THE PAPACY WAS EVEN HELD IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM AND TELLS US THAT THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT BIND THE SCHISMATICS TO BELIEVE IN IT!

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “…Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

This is another astounding heresy! Ratzinger again says that the schismatic position of the non-Catholic Patriarch Athenagoras, which rejects the Papacy and merely acknowledges the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter with a primacy of honor BUT NOT OF SUPREME JURISDICTION, is sufficient! Further, Ratzinger says that the reason that we cannot expect the “Orthodox” to believe in the Papacy (the primacy of supreme jurisdiction of the Popes, not just a primacy of honor) is because it wasn’t even held in the first millennium! Therefore, Ratzinger holds that the primacy of supreme jurisdiction conferred by Jesus Christ upon St. Peter and his successors is just a fiction, an invention of later ages, not held in the early Church. He says that the schismatic position of Athenagoras – holding that the successor of St. Peter possesses a mere primacy of honor – is “the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium” and that “Rome need not ask for more”! Notice how directly this apostate denies Vatican I, which defined that in all ages the primacy of jurisdiction was recognized:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “Surely no one has doubt, rather all ages have known that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the apostles and pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race; and he up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this chair, he according to the institution of Christ himself, holds the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” (Denz. 1824)

Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com