What
About Bishop Tom S.?
By Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
Dear Brothers,
I have read your articles with great
interest! I would like to know more about Father Dennis M… and Bishop
Thom S…. Both groups uphold the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla
Salus. What is your opinion of them? Is a Catholic safe to approach
them for the Sacraments? In Jesus and Mary, -A. Y.
Introductory Note:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
#9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that
John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the
secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the
memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether
forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form
of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.’ (II
John 10).”
Charity is not tolerating heresy, sowing confusion or failing to
denounce evil. St. John himself, the
Apostle of love, wouldn’t even let a heretic into his house. So those who claim that the treatment of
Bishop Tom in the following article is uncharitable simply cannot perceive
evil; they don’t love the Faith and they don’t know what true charity is. What is said below is not based on one instance
or two. It based on years worth of considering
the issue, personal experience and obstinate activity that leads one to an
undeniable conclusion. What is said
below must be brought out because it is true and because false pastors
who demonstrate obstinate bad will
and mislead Catholics must be exposed.
BISHOP
TOM WENT FROM BEING A LAYMAN TO A BISHOP WITHIN A FEW DAYS, ALL AT THE HANDS OF
A NON-CATHOLIC
Bishop
Tom is an independent Bishop who claims to be a Traditional Catholic. He received ordination (presumably validly
in the traditional rite) from a non-Catholic schismatic, and then was made a
Bishop by the same schismatic. Tom was
made a Bishop within a few days after his ordination by the non-Catholic
Bishop. This means that, in a few days, Tom went from being a layman to a
Bishop – all at the hands of a non-Catholic schismatic who doesn’t even profess
to be Roman Catholic.
BISHOP
TOM HAS, SADLY, SHOWN AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT HIS WORD AND BELIEFS MEAN NOTHING
When
we first got in contact with Bishop Tom, he sounded like a very strong
Catholic. He told us that he was fully
in agreement that the Vatican II imposters were in fact Antipopes. He spoke adamantly against the SSPX and other
heretical groups. I distinctly recall
him telling me over the telephone that we must pull people out of the Vatican
II schism and that the SSPX bishops were schismatics for their
non-sedevacantist position. Yet, to our dismay, we quickly discovered
that Tom’s word means basically nothing, and that he is unfortunately a
complete phony.
Shortly
after the time I spoke with him (when Tom claimed to be a strong
Sedevacantist), Bishop Tom held a
Conference with the non-sedevacantist “Fr.” Gregory Hesse. Why would Bishop Tom hold a Conference with Gregory
Hesse when Gregory Hesse had consistently attacked the position of
Sedevacantism –the position that Bishop Tom claimed to espouse? The answer is because Tom is, unfortunately,
a phony who doesn’t stand for the truth.
In his talk at the Conference, “Fr.” Gregory Hesse even denounced
Sedevacantism (the position of Bishop Tom) and
Bishop Tom said that God was speaking through Hesse!
During
the same Conference which featured Bishop Tom and Gregory Hesse, Bishop Tom specifically mentioned the
Bishops of the SSPX in a positive way as
if they were true Catholics. This was well after he told me
categorically that he felt that the SSPX was schismatic. This proved that Bishop Tom was a complete
phony.
On
top of all of this, Bishop Tom, who
claimed to be totally against the New
Rite of Ordination allowed Gregory Hesse (a “priest” “ordained” in the New
Rite) to offer “Mass” for his people at his chapel! To our dismay, we were figuring out that
Bishop Tom is a phony who stands for basically nothing.
BISHOP
TOM HAS CLAIMED TO BE SEDEVACANTIST FOR YEARS BUT DOES NOT ENFORCE THE FAITH AT
HIS CHAPEL
Before
and after the Conference with Hesse, Bishop Tom claimed to be a Sedevacantist, though
his policy was not to speak publicly and specifically to his people about this
from the pulpit. That is to say,
Bishop Tom never clearly told the people at his chapel that this was his
position and that it must be the position of all the people at his
Chapel. He either: 1) was too cowardly
to stand for the truth because he feared the reaction of the people; or 2) he didn’t think that the issue of the
Vatican II apostasy was important enough to warrant a specific discussion about
exactly what Catholics must think of it to receive the sacraments.
So,
his policy was – and is to this day – to allow people to come to Communion who
may be Sedevacantists and who may not be.
He doesn’t know what they believe since he doesn’t specifically instruct
them on what they must hold to come to Communion. As he told me himself, he tells them that
they “must be Catholics in the state of grace,” which even John Kerry would
consider himself to be.
Sorry,
but that is not good enough. Bishop
Tom’s policy is not that of a true Catholic.
A true Catholic, and especially a priest and a Bishop, must specifically
instruct Catholics on what they must hold in this time of apostasy. Those who refuse to accept it must be cleaned
out of the Chapel to preserve the unity of the Faith. “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.” (Eph. 4:5)
A good example of this is when we met a person outside a chapel who told
us that he believes that “all religions are important” – utter apostasy. People like this go right to Communion unless
the priest specifically instructs people on what they must not hold.
BISHOP
TOM’S PARISHIONERS DENY THE SALVATION DOGMA
The
heretical nature of Tom’s policy was shown just a few months ago when we got a
call from one of Bishop Tom’s parishioners.
This woman has been attending Bishop Tom’s Mass for years. She is a very loyal parishioner of Tom’s; and
she is also familiar with our material.
In fact, our material was heavily responsible for her being a
traditionalist. But now she won’t even
look at our material because her “Bishop” Tom won’t give her permission!
In
my conversation with this woman, I discovered that she believes that there are exceptions
to Outside the Church There is No Salvation (heresy) and she holds that Fr.
Feeney was condemned by the Church.
[Now, to avoid any confusion I must point out that it is certainly
possible that even with a priest who is preaching the Faith (and even if he got
all of his parishioners to sign a statement of Faith), there may still be some
who dishonestly stay at the chapel and remain heretics. So, I am not asserting that just because one
heretic was discovered at his chapel Bishop Tom is at fault.]
But
in this case, the woman’s denial of the salvation dogma is evidence of Bishop
Tom’s heretical negligence because Bishop Tom admittedly doesn’t
discuss specifically what one must hold on salvation and Sedevacantism from the
pulpit. Hence, this woman’s heresy
and reception of Communion at his chapel is, in this case, evidence of the bad
fruit of his heretical policy. Bishop
Tom is saying nothing at his church to disabuse her of her heretical
position. And what’s most revealing
about this is that Bishop Tom recently changed his position on the salvation
dogma: he would now claim to hold the position that only baptized Catholics can
be saved. Nevertheless, this woman
didn’t even know that Bishop Tom’s position had changed. She
didn’t know it because Tom doesn’t instruct the people at his chapel in these
issues; and he allows heretics to commune with him at his chapel on his watch. Thus, Bishop Tom doesn’t preserve the unity
of the Faith. He does not uphold the
teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (more on this soon).
BISHOP
TOM’S STUNNING HYPOCRISY AND BAD WILL
Bishop
Tom also has a severe dislike for us because we have brought his failure to be consistent
and stand for the truth to his attention.
In response, he attacks us and implies that we are schismatics for not
working with him. In fact, in one
response to us, which truly revealed his
utter dishonesty, hypocrisy and bad will, Tom actually implied that we are
excommunicated for teaching the Faith without the permission of a Bishop! This shows Tom’s hypocrisy and bad will
because Bishop Tom FULLY AGREES that Catholics have a right and a duty in
necessity to teach the Faith in this time, even without the normal Episcopal
imprimaturs on books. These are merely
ecclesiastical laws which don’t bind in this situation.
As
we will see from the following e-mail, we are dealing with a deeper level of
insincerity in Bishop Tom. Below is what
he actually wrote to us in an e-mail.
And what is most disappointing about this is not that the phony Bishop
Tom could make this charge, but that Fr. M. (whom he works with) tacitly agreed
with it!
Bishop Tom
to us via Fr. M.:>>>>Who has granted them
[the Dimond Brothers]… the power to teach, preach or publish, which according to the Councils of Trent
and Lateran V, as well as Canon Law, sentences them to excommunication reserved
to the Holy See.>>>
Here was my response to this outrageous
hypocrisy:
Bro. Peter
Dimond to Bishop Tom: “First, I must say that when one considers this question
carefully one easily picks up the hypocrisy at the heart of it. This is
because Canon Law forbids not only laymen from preaching the Faith, but anyone
without a mission from a legitimate Superior (Canon 1328).
Specific mention is also made that religious (1385.3) and secular clerics
(1386) are forbidden to publish materials teaching the Faith without permission
of their Superiors or Ordinaries. Thus, you and Fr. M… would be in
violation of these canons as much as anyone. So, for one to take your charge seriously is to acknowledge your own
excommunication and see your own condemnation in your words. It’s
astounding to me that you, Bishop Tom, who are in direct violation of numerous
canon laws which I will list, presume to bind this canon to others – a canon
that clearly doesn’t apply in this state of necessity and which you also would
be in violation of. I also find it outrageous that you, Fr. M…, can
present this question to us from Bishop [Tom]… as if we are excommunicated for
teaching the Faith and not offer any objection to such a false assertion, as
you know very well that it is totally without merit and runs contrary to the
whole tenor of your position (e.g. “How the Church functions in a time of
Crisis”). Frankly, Fr. M…, this is quite hypocritical on your part to
imply that we are excommunicated for teaching the Catholic Faith in this
crisis, which you know is not true, but is what you clearly imply by presenting
this ridiculous question without offering any objection to [Bishop Tom] about
it…
… since you
bring up the matter of ecclesiastical laws and attempt to criticize us in this
regard, let’s look at the facts. It is true to say that your
Episcopal Consecration at the hands of a notorious schismatic a day or two
after getting Ordained by the same schismatic is probably the most scandalous
and irregular of any in the traditional movement.
Canon 2372-
“They incur upon the fact a suspension from divine things, reserved to the
Apostolic See, who presume to receive orders from one excommunicated or
suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from
a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic; but whoever in good faith was
ordained by such a one as these lacks the exercise of the orders thus received
until he is dispensed.”
According to
Canon 2372, you [Bishop Tom] are suspended from divine things and lack the
exercise of your orders; i.e., you
are for all practical persons to be considered a layman. You will
surely respond by saying that in this state of emergency such a prohibition
doesn’t apply. Then why do you imply that we are excommunicated for
teaching the Faith? With what measure you give to others, it shall be
given to you. Are you totally blinded to your stunning hypocrisy?
Canon 2365- “A presbyter
who does not have, either by law or by concession of the Roman Pontiff, faculty
to administer the sacrament of confirmation but who dares to administer it is
suspended….”
I could list other canons, but I think
my point is clear.
In this exchange, we can see the utter
dishonesty and hypocrisy of Bishop Tom, as well as (unfortunately) the hypocrisy of Fr. Denis M. for
participating in and not condemning Tom’s action. Fr. M.
offered no objection to such an outrageous and hypocritical charge on the part
of Bishop Tom when he sent the e-mail to us, which condemns them both out
of their own mouth; nor did he condemn the phony Tom afterwards. Fr. M. continues to work with this total
phony and promote his website, which indicates that he shares his views.
BISHOP
TOM PROMOTES AS “TRADITIONAL APOLOGISTS” THOSE WHO REJECT THE FAITH AND HIS
POSITIONS
On his website, Bishop Tom has a Photo
Gallery. In the Photo Gallery, he has a picture of himself with “Fr.”
Gregory Hesse. Remember, this is the
same Gregory Hesse who, as stated above, is not a validly ordained priest
(“ordained” in the New Rite of Paul VI) and who attacks Sedevacantism. And remember, Bishop Tom claims to be a Sedevacantist and claims to hold that the New
Rite of Paul VI is not valid! “Fr.
Hesse” also said that Fr. Feeney may have been a heretic. Yet, he is pictured and mentioned as “Rev.”
on Tom’s website!
On his website, Bishop Tom also has a picture of himself with Atila Guimaraes and
Marian Horvat, who sell a pamphlet denouncing Sedevacantism and hold
that non-Catholics can be saved. Bishop Tom calls them “traditional
apologists.” The picture also seems
to indicate that he gave the Sacraments to these heretics. All of this shows that Bishop Tom is an
insincere phony and a heretic.
On his website, Bishop Tom also has a
completely unnecessary mention of Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt. Fr. Vaillancourt teaches in
his book that there is salvation “outside” the Catholic Church; and he
condemns those who reject baptism of desire.
Yet, there is a completely unnecessary mention of Fr. Vaillancourt on
Bishop Tom’s website. Bishop Tom is a
heretic who promotes heretics and stands for nothing.
When I pointed out to Tom the problem
with promoting such heretics on his site, he didn’t agree. But then he added a note of sorts that said: “NOTE: THIS IS A
"PHOTO GALLERY," AND THEREFORE NOT A "COMPENDIUM OF THOSE WHOSE THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS ARE SHARED BY THE MEMBERS OF
…," OBVIOUSLY.” But
his heretical mentality was already shown when he posted the pictures without
any clarification; and it was shown when he adamantly disagreed with us that
there is any problem with promoting such men after we pointed it out to him. Further, his note is not sufficient because
he presents Gregory Hesse as a validly ordained priest and doesn’t state that
he doesn’t regard these people as Catholics.
His true colors as a compromising, liberal phony are clear.
BISHOP
TOM AND FR. DENNIS M. BOTH PRAY FOR THOSE WHO DIE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
When Fr. Paul Wickens died last year,
both Bishop Tom and Fr. M. prayed for and requested prayers for this deceased
heretic. Fr. Wickens was a promoter of
the heretical SSPX; he rejected the Sedevacantist position for years; he
promoted Natural Family Planning; and he
willed his church to the apostate Archdiocese of the Vatican II sect! Nevertheless,
both Bishop Tom and Fr. M. prayed for the soul of this deceased heretic as if
he can be considered faithfully departed; and, on top of that, neither one (at
least in e-mails that I saw in which they requested such prayers) mentioned to
their flock that Wickens was a heretic or even that he held heretical positions. They gave their flock the impression that
Wickens can be regarded as a Catholic; and thus that one can be regarded as a
Catholic while… supporting the SSPX, willing his church to the diocese,
etc. As a Catholic, I fully acknowledge
that anyone, including Fr. Wickens, could convert to the true Faith on his
deathbed; but unless there is evidence of such conversion or adherence to the
true Faith in the external forum, such a one is presumed to have died as he
lived (as a heretic) and cannot be prayed for.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There
is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men
condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil
and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this
reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men,
because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment,
they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they
are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”
To pray for one who gave no evidence of
conversion or adherence to authentic Catholic truth – but rather, in the case
of Wickens, a man who gave evidence of rejection of the Faith by willing a
church to heretics as one of his last acts – is to tear asunder the unity of
Faith and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Fr. Dennis M. did so after I specifically
mentioned it to him.
In fact, Fr. Denis M. revealed to us
that he spent time with Fr. Wickens shortly before Wickens’ death. Fr. M. admitted that he didn’t specifically
bring up with Wickens the Sedevacantist issue or his support the SSPX. It is obvious, therefore, that Fr. M. doesn’t
believe that these issues are integral to one’s salvation, which is probably
why he shares a similar policy to the heretic Bishop Tom of not addressing
these issues with specificity at his chapel.
In fact, when the non-Catholic schismatic Bishop Simmons died –
the man who ordained and Consecrated Bishop Tom – Bishop Tom said “Rest in
Peace.”
I asked Bishop Tom if this non-Catholic Bishop converted to the Catholic
Faith before his death. Bishop Tom
responded that he had no evidence of this at all. Thus, Tom again prayed for one who must be
considered as having died a non-Catholic.
Bishop Tom believes that those who die as notorious non-Catholics can
have eternal rest. He shows again that
doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
BISHOP
TOM SAYS THAT IT’S A “GRAVE ERROR” TO CONSIGN ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE
FLAMES!
When
Antipope John Paul II died, Bishop Tom sent out a public letter which reveals
what kind of a liberal, heretical and schismatical phony he actually is. He writes:
“This day Karol Wojtyla, usurper of the Papal
Throne, has passed to his own personal judgment. This day he stands before the
Divine Tribunal and must make an accounting of his life and ministry.Over the
past several days I prayed for his soul – I prayed that he could repent of his
error and heresy and offer up his tremendous suffering for misleading so many
millions of souls. Would even that be enough to save his soul? I am content in
knowing that it is not for me to know – it is not for anyone to know. There are those who have already canonized
him, a grave error; and there are those who have consigned him to the
flames, another grave error. Rather, the true Catholic prays that God will have mercy on his soul,
and those of all sinners, heretics, and schismatics.”
John
Paul II was one of the worst heretics ever – in our view, he was the worst
ever. So, what does Bishop Tom say about
indisputably one of the worst heretics and apostates to have ever lived? He
says that it is a “grave error” to say that he is in the eternal flames! And Tom says that Catholics should pray for
his soul! Now, what kind of faithless
heretic would say something like that?
Only a faithless heretic who doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is
necessary for salvation and rejects that
all who die as non-Catholics go to the eternal flames.
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church
firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and
schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined
to the Church before the end of their lives….”
A
real Catholic says that John Paul II’s countless acts of heresy and apostasy
merited for him what all those who die as heretics suffer: eternal flames. And since there is no evidence of his
conversion and repudiation of his manifest apostasy, he is considered to have
died as he lived (as a non-Catholic); and a true Catholic cannot pray for his
soul, which is considered damned in the eternal flames of Hell. Read the Saints of the Church:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says
(Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after
the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for
not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal
punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead
unbelieving and wicked men, because,
forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment,
they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they
are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”
St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who
commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on
the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions;
he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we
can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian
faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his
own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.” (The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier by Henry James
Coleridge, S.J. Originally published: London: Burns and Oates,
1874 Second Reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2004, Vol. 2, p.
281.)
BISHOP
TOM PUBLICLY CONDEMNS AS SCHISMATICS THOSE WHO SAY WE ARE IN THE LAST
DAYS! HE ALSO QUOTES ANTIPOPE JOHN XXIII
WITHOUT KNOWING IT
Tom writes: “This is also a time to publicly and
clearly condemn those who clamour Antichrist and Perusia: these false prophets of doom and gloom
have again been proven wrong. The nonsense of declaring Wojtyla the Antichrist
and that we are
in the end times has been proven completely false. Unless those who have “proclaimed” these errors retract and repent,
they too must take an accounting of leading others into error and schism.”
First,
since Bishop Tom is a phony with no supernatural Faith, he totally
rejects the idea that we are in the last days of the world. Now, let’s think about this: Bishop Tom agrees that the Chair of St. Peter
has been vacant since 1958. That is 47
years. He also agrees that the New Mass
is an invalid, non-Catholic service.
This means that he agrees that idolatry (worshipping an invalidly
consecrated piece of bread) is occurring at almost every so-called “Catholic” church
in the world today. He also believes
that the Vatican II sect is an apostate, false church which poses as the
Catholic Church, but is not. But even
though he believes that all of this is occurring – a vacancy of the Chair of
Peter for 47 years; idolatry in almost every “Catholic” church; and a false
church posing as the true Church which has been reduced to a tiny remnant – he
utterly rejects that these are the last days!
Does this make any sense whatsoever?
No. On top of that, Tom not only
rejects that we are in the last days, but he holds that those who say we are in
the last days are schismatics who must repent.
But
there is another revealing point about Tom’s words above. In
examining his words carefully, one can see the wicked spirit which moves Bishop
Tom. Notice that Bishop Tom’s words are exactly what Antipope John XXIII,
the Freemasonic Conspirator who called Vatican II, said at the opening
speech of Vatican II, in ridicule of the
Message of Fatima.
Antipope John XXIII, Opening Speech of Vatican II, Oct. 11,
1962: “We feel that we must disagree
with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as
though the end of the world were at hand.”
Notice
the incredible parallel between John XXIII’s words and Bishop Tom’s words. They say the same thing, both in ridicule of
those who say that we are in the last days.
Frankly, they are both moved by the same wicked and unbelieving spirit, which scoffs at those who say we are in the
last days. So without knowing it Bishop
Tom is uttering the same words as the Freemasonic Antipope John XXIII, who
ridiculed the Fatima children and the apocalyptic significance of their
message.
Furthermore,
when Bishop Tom says that it is “nonsense” and schismatic to say that we are in
the last days he is condemning Sister
Lucia as a schismatic, who told Fr. Fuentes in 1957 that we are in the last
days.
Sister
Lucia to Fr. Fuentes, 1957:
"Father,
the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the
world but she made me understand this for three reasons. The first reason is because she told me that
the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the
Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be
victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Hence from now on we
must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil.
There is no other possibility…”
Sister
Lucia also stated before Vatican II that the Third Secret is in the Gospel and
in the Apocalypse; and she specifically mentioned chapters 8 to 13. All of this shows us what “schismatic
nonsense” his own views are.
But
Bishop Tom is also condemning as schismatic Pope St. Pius X, who said that he
believed we were probably in the last days in 1903, and that the Son of
Perdition may already be in the world.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi #4, Oct. 4, 1903: “When all this is considered there is
good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste,
and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days;
and that there may already be in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the
Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3).”
All
of this just shows us again what a wicked, faithless phony Bishop Tom is; he
condemns those who say we are in the last days because he doesn’t like what
they are bringing to his attention: the necessity of vigorously combating this
apostasy. In regard to Tom’s assertion
that it is “nonsense” to say that John Paul II is the Antichrist, one can only
say that a faithless, dishonest, insincere phony like Bishop Tom – who allows
people “ordained” in the New Rite to say Mass for his people when he doesn’t
even believe that the New Rite is valid – would certainly have trouble
believing that John Paul II could be the Antichrist. Those who are evil, such as Bishop Tom,
cannot perceive it themselves, being mired in their own darkness. Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Faith to perceive
that John Paul II’s distinguishing teaching is exactly what St. John described
as the distinguishing teaching of the Antichrist, as we proved; and he doesn’t
have the Faith to perceive that “Rome has lost the Faith and become the Seat of
the Antichrist,” as Our Lady of La Salette prophesied, as soon as the Vatican
publicly endorsed that Jews don’t need Christ (which it has).
Tom
desires to belittle the evil and the significance of the Vatican II apostasy to
justify his failure to combat it and instruct against it. He admitted to us that mentioning John Paul
II from the pulpit “once a year” is sufficient – and even then he doesn’t specifically
explain why Catholics must hold that John Paul II was not the Pope to come to
Communion. Someone with this heretical
outlook certainly is hoping to belittle the significance of the Vatican II
sect.
In
response to some of our criticism that he doesn’t address these issues from the
pulpit, Tom said that he was distributing our flyer on the heresies of Vatican
II. Well, we got a copy of the flyer
from a person who was attending his chapel.
We discovered that he was distributing the flyer alright, but with our
name and contact information removed.
It’s one thing to remove the name; but for him to give the impression that he is in support of our material when
he is simultaneously removing our name
from our flyer shows again that he is a phony.
BISHOP
TOM PUBLICLY CALLED A HERETIC NAMED JOE S. “THE PROPHET” WHEN JOE S. WAS
SUPPORTING HIM
Tom
publicly called a man named Joseph Saraceno “the prophet” at a Conference a few
years ago. At the time, Saraceno was
attending and supporting Tom’s chapel.
Compare this fact with what Tom writes now:
Tom writes: “This is also a time to publicly and
clearly condemn those who clamour Antichrist and
Perusia: these
false prophets of doom and gloom have
again been proven wrong. The nonsense of declaring Wojtyla the Antichrist and that we are in the end times has been
proven completely false. Unless
those who have “proclaimed” these errors retract and repent, they too must take
an accounting of leading others into error and schism.”
He
says that these “false prophets of doom and gloom” have been proven wrong again, when he not long ago publicly
endorsed this heretical false prophet Joseph Saraceno
who said that we are in the last days!
Here’s
the key: when Saraceno was supporting
Bishop Tom he called him “the prophet”; but now that Saraceno doesn’t go to his
chapel Tom condemns him as a false prophet!
Saraceno definitely is a false prophet who
thinks that he is one of the witnesses of the Apocalypse because he has put forth the invaluable (?) theory that Christ will
return on Pentecost of some year.
Saraceno also denies the salvation dogma and is a heretic. But the point is that Tom, who doesn’t
believe that we are in the last days (and who totally condemns those who say
that we are!), called this man “the prophet” when he was supporting his
chapel. Here is what Saraceno wrote to
me when I asked him recently if Bishop Tom called him a “prophet.”
Bro. Peter Dimond:
… Yes it is
true when he [Bishop Tom] quoted my booklet he publicly stated "The
Prophet Joseph Saraceno states...." Now let me ask you, do you
accept him as a Bishop????? In Christ,
the Prophet, Joseph
I
know this is true because I heard Bishop Tom call this false prophet “the
prophet” on audio tape. This really shows
us all about how much of a fraud Bishop Tom actually is.
CONCLUSION ABOUT BISHOP TOM AND FR. DENNIS M.
More
could be said about Bishop Tom, and if we must say more in the future we
will. But the fact of the matter is that
Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Catholic Faith.
Bishop Tom is a schismatic because he condemns those who say that we are
in the last days. He denies the
salvation dogma by saying it is a “grave error” to declare that John Paul II
must be considered lost to eternal hellfire.
He prays for those who die outside the Church and thus tears asunder the
necessity of the Faith. He allowed a
“priest” ordained in the New Rite to offer “Mass” at his chapel when he doesn’t
even accept the New Rite as valid. He
promotes heretics who reject his own positions, including Gregory Hesse, Fr.
Vaillancourt, Atila Guimaraes and Marian Horvat, on his website. He allows anyone to come to receive Communion
at his chapel, including those who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is
No Salvation and the Sedevacantist position or even those who may go to the
Novus Ordo. He doesn’t tell people that
they must reject the salvation heresies and the Vatican II Antipopes if they
want to be Catholic and receive the sacraments.
Bishop Tom is a heretic. This is
not a question; this is a fact.
Tom’s
actions have shown him to be a complete phony and a false shepherd. He is an example of why Bishops normally
couldn’t be consecrated without a Papal Mandate, and why Popes tell us that it
is better to have few priests than bad priests.
Now, we hold that a priest who is sincerely Catholic could be
consecrated a Bishop without a Papal Mandate in a crisis such as this. But the candidate must be sincere; he must
have his glory in God and in the Catholic Faith; otherwise the evil spirit will
take over and help construct a false sect.
Bishop
Tom went from being a layman to a Bishop within a few days, all at the hands of
a non-Catholic. He has shown again and
again that his glory is not in God and the Catholic Faith, but in himself. And while he denies the Catholic Faith and is
definitely a heretic, he is enthralled by externals and his trappings as a
“Bishop.” He acts as if he is a lawfully
appointed Bishop of the Catholic Church with authority to command people. He wrote to us “My sons” as if he had
authority over us; he dresses fully as if he were a legitimate Bishop with
jurisdiction; he is called by the priests “His Lordship or His Excellency,”
etc. Since Bishop Tom received orders at
the hands of a notorious non-Catholic, he is to be considered a layman
according to the strict letter of canon law in normal circumstances. Since he was raised to the Episcopate under
such ignominious circumstances in this unusual crisis of the Faith, he should
dress as a regular priest. I believe
that if he did become fully Catholic he could exercise his orders in this
crisis, even though under normal
circumstances he would lack the exercise of his orders; but he absolutely
does not deserve the trappings of Bishop or to be called “His Excellency” even if he were fully Catholic, which he
is not.
Nevetheless,
the priests working “under him” call him
“His Lordship or His Excellency,” while this heretic is a total disgrace
before God and makes a mockery of the Catholic Faith. Bishop Tom is all about himself, as proven
when he condemned as schismatics those who say we are in the last days. This has to be one of the most ridiculous
statements ever made in the traditional movement. But he didn’t care about the accuracy of his
ridiculous charge; he was primarily concerned with vindicating himself against
others. To the heretic Bishop Tom the
words of Pope St. Pius X apply:
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda Sane #30, March 12, 1904: “Of such apostles the Church has no need;
they are not apostles of Jesus Christ
Crucified but of themselves.”
No Catholic can give any
financial support whatsoever to this false pastor, Bishop Tom, who is
definitely a heretic who denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation. He is also a schismatic for condemning
those who hold that we are in the last days. He is
also a schismatic for acting as if he possesses some ruling authority in the
Church, when he has none. And because Bishop Tom condemns true
Catholics as schismatics (and thus imposes heresy upon them), no Catholic
should even receive the sacraments from him at all or attend his chapel at all.
WHAT
ABOUT FR. DENNIS M?
Fr. Dennis M., for some
strange reason, wants to be in communion with this heretic Bishop Tom. This is sad to say; but it must be said,
since Fr. Dennis M. has obstinately promoted, associated with and put himself
under this heretic Bishop Tom. We charitably warned Fr. Dennis M. about
Bishop Tom’s heretical positions and actions.
Fr. Dennis M. wouldn’t address the issue at all. We specifically asked Fr. Denis M. if he
agreed with Bishop Tom’s totally unnecessary promotion of dogma deniers,
non-sedevacantists and an invalidly ordained “Rev.” on his website. (That alone
should show Fr. M. that Tom doesn’t care about the Catholic Faith at all.) But instead of addressing the issue like a
man and responding to our simple question about whether he agreed with the
absurd activity of Bishop Tom, Fr.
Dennis M. very cowardly didn’t even answer the e-mail and skirted the issue by
sending the e-mail directly to Bishop Tom.
There
is a diabolical dynamic at work with the heretic Bishop Tom that is clearly
perceptible when you see how these priests and people under him simply dismiss
what he is doing and recognize his “authority” as if he were their spiritual
father and leader – when he has no authority to rule in the Catholic Church
whatsoever. Fr. Dennis M. is now so
attached to this faithless phony Tom that, instead of reasonably discussing
his activity, he wouldn’t even address the issue and went running right away to
Tom for his answer! This is
terrible. In essence, what we see is the
development of a false hierarchy under the authority of Bishop Tom – a man who
received orders from a notorious schismatic.
It’s as if Fr. Dennis M. is now under the hierarchy headed by Bishop Tom
and will hear nothing of criticism of him.
I can clearly perceive the beginning of a false type of sect, under a
pseudo-Bishop who is a phony.
People
need to realize that even if Bishop Tom were fully Catholic (which he
definitely isn’t) a consecration as a
Bishop in this crisis only gives the new Bishop the power of the fullness of
the priesthood and a supplied jurisdiction to operate for the needs of the
faithful. It does not give
him territorial authority over a diocese or an office in which he can command
other priests or other souls. Such
jurisdiction, which is called ordinary jurisdiction – the jurisdiction attached
to an office with authority to rule – is conferred by a Pope.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis Christi (#42), June 29, 1943: “… Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the
Universal Church… Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent,
but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of
jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.”
As
we can see, ordinary jurisdiction to rule a territory or souls as a Bishop is
obtained from a Supreme Pontiff. Since
there is no true Catholic Pope at this time (the Chair of Peter is vacant),
Bishops consecrated in this crisis do not receive ordinary jurisdiction, but
only a supplied jurisdiction to operate for the needs of the faithful. If they inherited ordinary jurisdiction, then
any priest could get ordained/consecrated and then could start commanding
people. But that is obviously absurd and
false.
But
the people under Bishop Tom don’t understand this. When I
told one woman who attends his chapel that he doesn’t have any authority over
souls to command them, she was bewildered and almost stunned. It was obvious that she thought that he was
her superior; she thought that this man who received orders from a
non-Catholic schismatic possessed authority to rule in the Catholic
Church. Another woman (as stated above)
told us that she wouldn’t even look at our material without the permission of
her Bishop. This proves what I said
above: the devil is subtly constructing
a false pseudo-hierarchy in which Tom is a ruler; and that Tom is acting as if he is a Bishop with
Ordinary Jurisdiction to command souls, even though he would try to deny this.
FR.
DENNIS M’s attachment to the heretic Bishop Tom caused him to violate his
entire position on functioning in the crisis
As
I said, Fr. Dennis M isn’t interested
in fielding any questions about Tom’s disgraceful activity. And for some strange reason Fr. M has actually put himself under this
non-Catholic phony Bishop Tom (not in his religious community, but actually
under Tom as if he were his Bishop), as if Tom possesses authority to rule
priests in the Catholic Church.
His
attachment to Tom caused him to compromise his entire position on how the
Church functions in a time of crisis.
Fr. Dennis M. is an outspoken supporter of a proper understanding of epikeia in this crisis of the
Faith. Fr. Dennis M. correctly points out that Catholics, priests and bishops
have the permission to operate, publish, teach the Faith, etc. without the
permission normally required by the local ordinary, since there are no Catholic
ordinaries at this time. Yet (as noted
above) when Bishop Tom sent us the
outrageous charge that we are excommunicated for teaching the Catholic Faith
(which both of them reject), Fr. Dennis M. not only sent it to us, but didn’t
offer any objection to it. He
violated everything he claimed to stand for on this issue to curry favor with
Bishop Tom!
Fr.
Dennis M. also obstinately prays for those who die outside the Catholic
Church. Further, when we asked Fr.
Dennis M. if he shares Bishop Tom’s policy of not speaking and enforcing the
Sedevacantist issue at his chapel HE
DIDN’T EVEN ANSWER OUR QUESTION. He
confirms by his silence that he holds a similar position to Tom in regard to
not telling people what they must hold to receive sacraments and not
cleaning heretics out of his church.
Since
Fr. Dennis M. is affiliated with this schismatic Bishop Tom who, among other
things, says it is a “grave error” to hold that John Paul II is in the eternal
flames, no Catholic should give Fr. M.
any support whatsoever. Also, since
Dennis M. publicly defends heresy (see the article Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer)
no one should attend his Mass at all.
-7/16/05-
VINDICATED- OUR ANALYSIS OF
BISHOP TOM, THOUGH REJECTED AND CRITICIZED AS UNCHARITABLE BY SOME, PROVED TO
BE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
Readers of this website will recall that some
months back we posted an article warning Catholics about a Sedevacantist
Bishop Tom (Bishop Tom S. and Dennis M.) Bishop Tom claimed to hold the Sedevacantist position; he claimed to hold that
baptism is necessary for salvation; and he claimed to utterly reject the
New Mass and the Vatican II sect. But,
as we pointed out in the article, we could see that Bishop Tom proved by his
actions and statements over the years that he was a phony who really had no
Faith. In fact, it was so clear to
us from Tom’s actions (as documented in the article) that Tom was a fraud and a
heretic (even though he claimed otherwise) that we denounced him in no
uncertain terms as a complete phony, a fraud and a heretic. This analysis, coming many months ago and
based upon various statements and actions of Bishop Tom, seemed very harsh and
uncharitable to some, especially since Tom claimed to hold the correct
positions. The analysis was utterly
rejected by some of those who really like our material.
If we cared what people thought in presenting the
truth, we probably never would have published such an article. The fact of the matter, however, is that if
it is true and we feel that it needs to be said, we are going to tell the truth
(by God’s grace); and we don’t care if
everyone rejects it, if it is true and needs to be said. We hope they will agree, of course, but if
they are too blind to see or too liberal to perceive or if almost everyone will
reject it, but it needs to be said anyway, we are not going to cease saying it
just because many will denounce it or
reject it as “uncharitable” because they are too blind to perceive what true
charity is. If a person presenting
the truths of the Catholic Faith doesn’t have the attitude, in accordance with
Our Lord’s words in John 6:68: “Will you also go away?”, that is, if one
doesn’t have the attitude and the conviction that he is willing to let everyone
go who doesn’t accept the truth that is being presented, no matter how much
disagreement there may be, he will always compromise and fail to tell the
truth. We knew that Bishop Tom was an
obstinate, evil, phony heretic, based upon facts, statements and actions – and
we felt that it needed to be said – so we posted the article. But alas, because people are too blinded by
their liberalism and bad will – and lack a true love for God and hatred for
evil – or because they are too attached to human beings, and because
Bishop Tom claimed to be a Sedevacantist who claimed
to hold the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, some people who
avidly read our material totally disagreed with our “uncharitable” assessment
of Bishop Tom. They continued to support
him, after we pointed out that no Catholic could obviously support such a
person.
Well, on Thursday, July 14, 2005 we received an
e-mail from one of those readers who had rejected our article denouncing Bishop
Tom as a heretic and a phony. The e-mail
stated: “You were right.” Bishop Tom has now totally and publicly
abandoned his position of Sedevacantism.
Bishop Tom has now accepted the
arch-apostate Benedict XVI and made a profession of Faith acknowledging him as
Pope, and began his process of “reconciliation” with the apostate Novus Ordo Bishop! Below is a portion of the e-mail that was
sent by Fr. Dennis M. to someone we know.
Fr. Dennis M. was the priest whom we denounced for obstinately
remaining united to this heretic Bishop Tom (and also for obstinately asserting
that Our Lady is a Co-Redeemer in direct contradiction to the language of
Trent):
[From Fr.
Dennis M. to a reader]: “… I feel obliged to tell you that I am no longer
affiliated with him [Bishop Tom] or his priests. This
decision was made yesterday upon receiving a letter from Bishop…[Tom], informing me that, in May, he and his clergy (1)
made a Profession of Faith, acknowledging Joseph Ratzinger
as the Successor of St. Peter, (2) accepted the Vatican II sect as the
legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and (3) have recently spoken with
the Novus Ordo
"bishop" to begin the process of their "reconciliation and
submission" to the Novus Ordo
sect. The Society… which I founded, and our parish… are in total disagreement with what
Bishop Sebastian and his clergy have chosen to do. On account of this, we are
no longer affiliated with them.”
We remind the readers what we said about Bishop Tom
many months back in the article, for which we were criticized and probably
condemned as uncharitable by many.
We posted this when Tom claimed to be a staunch sedevacantist
who utterly condemned Vatican II and the Novus Ordo sect:
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “…his [Bishop Tom’s] note is not sufficient because
he presents Gregory Hesse as a validly ordained
priest and doesn’t state that he doesn’t regard these people as Catholics. His [Bishop Tom’s] true colors as a
compromising, liberal phony are clear.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “First, since Bishop Tom is a phony with no supernatural
Faith, he totally rejects the idea that we are in the last days of the
world…”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “Tom again prayed for one who must be considered as having died a
non-Catholic. Bishop Tom believes that
those who die as notorious non-Catholics can have eternal rest. He shows again that doesn’t believe that
the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “John Paul II was one of
the worst heretics ever – in our view, he was the worst ever. So, what does Bishop Tom say about
indisputably one of the worst heretics and apostates to have ever lived? He says that it is a “grave error” to say
that he is in the eternal flames! And
Tom says that Catholics should pray for his soul! Now, what kind of faithless heretic would
say something like that? Only a
faithless heretic who doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary
for salvation and rejects that all who die as non-Catholics go to the eternal
flames.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “But there is another
revealing point about Tom’s words above.
In examining his words carefully, one can see the wicked spirit which
moves Bishop Tom. Notice that Bishop
Tom’s words are exactly what Antipope John XXIII, the Freemasonic Conspirator
who called Vatican II, said at the opening speech of Vatican II, in ridicule of
the Message of Fatima. Notice the incredible parallel between John XXIII’s words and Bishop Tom’s words. They say the same thing, both in ridicule of
those who say that we are in the last days.
Frankly, they are both moved by the same wicked and unbelieving spirit, which scoffs at
those who say we are in the last days.
So without knowing it Bishop Tom is uttering the same words as the Freemasonic
Antipope John XXIII, who ridiculed the Fatima children and the apocalyptic
significance of their message.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “More
could be said about Bishop Tom, and if we must say more in the future we
will. But the fact of the matter is
that Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Catholic Faith.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “This really shows us all
about how much of a fraud Bishop Tom actually is.”
OUR WARNINGS TO FR. DENNIS M
In that same article, I also pointed out that we
attempted to warn Fr. Dennis M. about the faithless phony Bishop Tom, but to no
avail:
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “Fr. Dennis M., for some strange reason, wants to be in
communion with this heretic Bishop Tom.
This is sad to say; but it must be said, since Fr. Dennis M. has
obstinately promoted, associated with and put himself under this heretic Bishop
Tom. We
charitably warned Fr. Dennis M. about Bishop Tom’s heretical positions and
actions. Fr. Dennis M. wouldn’t address
the issue at all. We specifically
asked Fr. Denis M. if he agreed with Bishop Tom’s totally unnecessary promotion
of dogma deniers, non-sedevacantists and an invalidly
ordained “Rev.” on his website. (That alone should show Fr. M. that Tom doesn’t
care about the Catholic Faith at all.)
But instead of addressing the issue like a man and responding to our
simple question about whether he agreed with the absurd activity of Bishop Tom,
Fr. Dennis M. very cowardly didn’t even
answer the e-mail and skirted the issue by sending the e-mail directly to
Bishop Tom.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “In this exchange, we can see the
utter dishonesty and hypocrisy of Bishop Tom, as well as (unfortunately) the hypocrisy of Fr. Denis M. for participating
in and not condemning Tom’s action. Fr. M. offered no objection to such an
outrageous and hypocritical charge on the part of Bishop Tom when he sent the
e-mail to us, which condemns them both out of their own mouth; nor did he
condemn the phony Tom afterwards. Fr. M.
continues to work with this total phony and promote his website, which
indicates that he shares his views.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “As I said, Fr. Dennis M isn’t interested in fielding any questions about Tom’s disgraceful
activity. And for some strange reason Fr. M has actually put himself under this
non-Catholic phony Bishop Tom (not in his religious community, but actually
under Tom as if he were his Bishop), as if Tom possesses authority to rule
priests in the Catholic Church.”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “His attachment to Tom caused him to compromise his entire
position on how the Church functions in a time of crisis. Fr. Dennis M. is an outspoken supporter of a proper
understanding of epikeia
in this crisis of the Faith. Fr. Dennis M. correctly points out that
Catholics, priests and bishops have the permission to operate, publish, teach
the Faith, etc. without the permission normally required by the local
ordinary, since there are no Catholic ordinaries at this time. Yet (as noted above) when Bishop Tom sent us the outrageous charge that we are
excommunicated for teaching the Catholic Faith (which both of them reject), Fr.
Dennis M. not only sent it to us, but didn’t offer any objection to it. He violated everything he claimed to stand
for on this issue to curry favor with Bishop Tom!”
Bro. Peter Dimond, What
About Bishop Tom S?: “Fr. Dennis M. also obstinately prays for those who die outside
the Catholic Church. Further, when we asked Fr. Dennis M. if he shares
Bishop Tom’s policy of not speaking and enforcing the Sedevacantist
issue at his chapel HE DIDN’T EVEN
ANSWER OUR QUESTION. He confirms by
his silence that he holds a similar position to Tom in regard to not telling
people what they must hold to receive sacraments...”
Now Fr. Dennis M. can see what he couldn’t see – what he should have
seen based on the facts – and what we tried to tell him, but which he
rejected as uncharitable and rash. We
can all see how much “wisdom” Fr. Dennis M. has in evaluating the good guys
from the bad guys. It reminds me of when
Fr. Dennis M. announced that he was giving a talk at a chapel of Fr. Ryan St.
Anne. Upon hearing about this I warned
Fr. Dennis M. that Fr. Ryan (who is very similar to the phony Bishop Tom) has
repeatedly demonstrated that he is a phony and that he is not a Sedevacantist. In
fact, Fr. Ryan repeatedly changed his position in one phone conversation that I
had with him asking him simple questions.
I notified Fr. Dennis M. that he should question Fr. Ryan and he will
discover that what I said is true. He
didn’t agree, and wrote to a friend of ours that we uncharitably wanted him to
condemn Fr. Ryan. (If I recall
correctly, all we wanted Fr. Dennis M. to do was to ask Fr. Ryan some pointed
questions, and he would discover the truth himself; but apparently that was too
hard for Fr. Dennis M.) So, after Fr.
Dennis M. traveled to give the talk for Fr. Ryan’s group, he wrote to us and
informed us that we were right about Fr. Ryan and that Fr. Ryan actually had a picture of Antipope John Paul II in the
Dining Hall!
To his credit, Fr. Dennis M. has now
rejected Tom’s apostate action of entering into communion with the Vatican II
sect and the Christ-denying apostate, Antipope Benedict XVI. But Fr. Dennis M. failed to recognize this
complete phony when he had ample evidence to do so. He prominently linked to his website for many
months and promoted the phony Bishop Tom and his faithless priests well after facts came out to expose
them.
And while Fr. Dennis M. has separated
from the apostate Bishop Tom (something he should have done long ago), he still
insists that Our Lady is the Co-Redeemer (in direct contradiction to the language
of Trent) and condemned us for reiterating the defined dogma that Our Lord
alone is our Redeemer. Fr. Dennis M.
also denounces the use of the message of Our Lady of La Salette,
and promotes the non-sedevacantist video What We Have Lost! The conclusion of this video that Fr. Dennis
M. promotes is that the errors of Protestantism have completely overtaken the
Catholic Church (a blasphemous and heretical supposition).
As long as he insists that Our Lady is
the Co-Redeemer (which doesn’t honor Our Lady since it is not true), no
Catholic should support him, though we give him credit where it is due, for rejecting
the apostasy of Bishop Tom.
To illustrate the evil and wicked
blindness of the apostate Bishop Tom, here is a quote from a letter that Bishop
Tom wrote to Fr. Dennis M. after renouncing Sedevacantism and offering Mass in
union with Antipope Benedict XVI. This
quote was contained in an e-mail that was forwarded to us:
Fr. Dennis
M: “Bishop… [Tom] wrote to me in his letter: ‘I cannot convey the joy I have
felt offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Benedicto, not because I
am offering Mass in union with wicked priests, bishops and poor liturgies, but
because I am offering the Holy Sacrifice in union with Our Lord, His Vicar and
His Church.’”
Bishop
Tom is not only a fraud, but a fraud of abominable proportions. In his wickedness and diabolical blindness, he
is rejoicing to have denied Jesus Christ by entering in communion with the
non-Catholic, apostate Vatican II sect, which doesn’t even believe that Jesus
Christ is the Messiah.
CONCLUSION
In
conclusion perhaps we can realize what we have been pointing out, but what some
fail to see: when people are obstinately
inconsistent about matters of the Catholic Faith (even if they claim to hold the truth); or if they endorse heretics
after they’ve been made aware of their heresies; or if they often contradict what
they claim to believe; or if they tell one person or group one thing and
another person or group a different thing; or if they fail to denounce evil; or if they fail to denounce heretics; or
if they fail to be forthright about what they believe; or IF THEIR YES IS NOT
YES AND THEIR NO IS NOT NO, they are not of God, but of the devil, no matter
how much truth they otherwise promote or how much devotion and fidelity to the
correct positions they may claim to have.
True charity is not making excuses for such people. Just think of the evil that Bishop Tom can
now perpetrate upon the decent number of sedevacantist
supporters he has amassed because people failed to denounce him for the phony
he is. To allow such evil to flourish
and make excuses for such evil men is not charitable; it is evil.