Archive for E Exchanges || Rosaries Beads || Spanish Church || Tridentine Mass || Mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Click here to see our new website: www.vaticancatholic.com

E-Exchanges Archive 2

*This section of our website will contain some less formal – and short – e-mail exchanges that we’ve had which we feel may be of value to our readers. This is the Archive for old E-Exchanges. For current ones, go here: E-Exchanges We will include those portions of the exchanges we deem relevant and valuable. We often add bolding and underlining which are not necessarily that of the other party. The statements from MHFM are in red and begin at the far left of the page. The statements from the other side are indented.*

New V-2 Debate

MHFM: This is a debate on the issue of whether Vatican II (and the Vatican II sect) teaches the heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion. William, with whom we had a more formal debate, came back to debate on this topic.

Debate: does Vatican II teach that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion? [39 min. audio]

This will be found permanently in the Telephone Conversations section of our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs. For a file relating to some of the quotes mentioned in this debate, see: The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion [PDF].

Listened

I wanted to tell you that I had my friend's mother listen to a little bit of some of your audio programs that I had on my iPod. She really liked what she heard. She said that they were very well done… She asked me to give her a copy of them so her and her husband could get a chance to hear the rest of them( they are both a little computer shy). I have discussed a few of the issues with the V2 church with them, but we really don't get that much time together. They have admitted they have had their own problems with the V2 Church. Hopefully once they hear what you have to say they will be fully convinced and leave the New Mass.

MHFM: Thanks, hopefully they will come around.

Bad Confessions

MHFM,

Hello, I have two questions. First is about St. Teresa of Avila when she said that bad confessions damn the majority of Christians. Aside from making sure that one does not hide any sin out of pride, is there anything else one should do to ensure avoiding a bad confession? Second, I saw your headline about BeXVI changing the stations of the cross. Are the stations of the cross that have been used previously traditional, and if not then what are the traditional stations of the cross? I would appreciate your help.

Kenneth

MHFM: We think that people can make bad confessions by attempting to justify their sins while confessing them. In other words, they might give so many reasons or explanations, etc. that they basically excuse themselves for the sins they have committed, and in so doing can make a bad confession.

Benedict XVI is eliminating certain Stations of the Cross for World Youth Day, so as not to offend members of false religions. You can find the Stations of the Cross in a traditional missal.

Returned

Thank you for the critical information and good counsel that has helped me return to Catholicism.

Gloria Howard

California

College Blasphemy

Greetings, Brothers.

Just couldn't resist a comment. In your telephone debate with the NO apologist in Chicago (whose ignorance was astounding!), I, too wondered about his continual use of the term "the Deity". However, after reading the e-mail about this abominable woman at a "Catholic" college allowing only gender-neutral terms for God, I understand why! Of course, the most important prayer which Jesus himself taught us called the "Our Father" (do you suppose they've ever heard of it?) must be a horror to them. These people get wackier by the minute.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you do to spread the truth.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

Margaret Moore

What Heresy?

Really? What heresy do I adhere to?

MHFM: The dogma you deny is that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“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…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):

“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”[1][v]

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

“Catholic College”

Subject: An excerpt from a “Catholic college”

In a syllabus for Moral Theology, a nota bene appears from the ex O.P. nun who was hired as chair of theology:

A "requirement" for my class is that you will NOT refer to God as "FATHER" (Emphasis mine). The following gender 'neutral' references for God, i.e., Creator, the Loving One, etc. are acceptable. Your semester and final grades will reflect your adherence to this requirement." Needless to say, that ex-blasphemer would have had seen me jumping out of a window after hearing that trash.

The blasphemy continues:

"Mother God, overshadows Daughter Mary." A student in this moral theology class questioned this ex-nun by asking two questions: The first: "What does moral theology" have to do with the incarnation? The second: "In stating that God is female and therefore "overshadowed" Daughter Mary, you are making the blasphemous assertion that Jesus Christ was born of a lesbian union!" From what I gathered, the walls of the classroom practically disintegrated. Kudos to the student.

Again, God is so good to us for giving the truth of the Catholic Faith, and then we have these nitwit ex-nuns… While it is true that God being eternal is beyond the confines of time, space and gender,it was JESUS who REVEALED God to us as FATHER- therefore, the matter has been settled.

MOTHER GOD?? May God have mercy on those who dare even think this, much less profess it.

[Name Withheld]

Affected

DEAR BROTHER

I AM SO DEEPLY AFFECTED BY THE THINGS I AM READING IN YOUR BOOK. I THINK HAVING A PRIEST TO CONFESS TO WOULD FREE ME UP INSIDE FROM A LOT OF THE BURDEN OF YEARS OF MIS-INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BEEN ABIDING BY. I SEE IT AS A CLEANSING STEP. BUT, TO REJECT THE MASS ALTOGETHER KNOWING THAT I AM DISABLED AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO A CHURCH TOO FAR AWAY I AM WORRIED. WHAT WOULD I DO WITHOUT MASS?...

PLEASE REPLY AND THANK YOU..........THERESA

MHFM: We’re glad to hear about your interest, but you must realize that the New Mass is not a Mass. Why is this so hard for some people to understand or accept? It’s not valid. You’re not going to a Mass if you go there. God doesn’t want you to go there. It’s nothing more than a Protestant service: The Invalid New Mass.

False Traditionalist Cowards

MHFM: A false traditionalist named Michael Hamilton wrote to us criticizing our views on sedevacantism. We asked him if he would be willing to have a recorded conversation, in which we could respond directly to his points and ask him our own. He has refused. This is not a surprise. All of these heretics are the same. They like to hide behind their computers and send out their arrogant and false arguments. But they refuse to get into a conversation where their points could be directly addressed and refuted, where they can’t run and hide from the facts. They are pathetic, and they are not of the truth.

V-2 Schism

Did you read in the subscriber comments for the article Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics posted in "News and Commentary:"

My Greek Orthodox friend, who accepts the authority of the pope but not the filioque, will soon be formally welcomed into the Catholic Church -by the nuncio, no less- WITHOUT CEASING TO BE ORTHODOX!! This is a VERY new thing! It shows just how little separates Catholics from Orthodox and how the Catholic Church is willing to accomodate. My friend's been receiving communion in the Catholic Church -with permission- for years.

MHFM: That certainly shows how people are imbibing the heresies of the new religion and losing their souls as a result.

Cheat

To The Brothers Dimond:

While I wholeheartedly agree with 99.9 % of what's on your website, I must disagree with your views on cheating as a mortal sin for the following reasons:

First: As you are well aware, mortal sin must have three SIMULTANEOUS properties: grave matter, sufficient reflection and complete consent. I hardly think that
one who cheats at a game of monopoly can justifiably before God be damned for all eternity. To me, that's plain meaness and if one is sorry for such an act, it's NOT going to affect someone's salvation. While the act of cheating is indeed wrong, it cannot be compared to one who plagarizes a dissertation or paper as part of a graduation requirement and then ends up with a degree with work that was not his own, because all three elements of mortal sin were concurrent when the act occurred.

Secondly: If the game of monopoly was a game in which money was being exchanged, that is gambling and this can quickly become a mortal sin if one
were to squander his wages on such a game when the revenue is needed to support himself and/or family.

Lastly, I don't think that any traditional Catholic would condone cheating, and as you cite, "if we were only honest in our daily lives." Yet, if we really examine our consciences, are any of us really that honest- be it with God, our neighbor or ourselves? I certainly cannot say that by any means, because in the course of a day, there are times that I stumble and fall. If we were, there would be no need for confession, correct?

MHFM: In response to your points: First, cheating at a serious game does constitute grave matter, as we’ve explained. To respond by saying that it would seem “mean” for God to damn someone over that, well, then you need to read some of the Old Testament. You need to see how God looks at disobedience to Him and a failure to live up to His truth.

Second, the question of whether money was exchanged is irrelevant to the point. We were talking about a normal game of monopoly.

Third, people who would cheat at a serious game of monopoly have some significant spiritual problems. They choose the fleeting pleasure of victory in the game over honesty; they choose to deceive their fellow men and operate dishonestly to win a game. It’s very bad. You seem to be justifying such mortally sinful cheating by saying “everybody stumbles and falls.” No, people shouldn’t cheat; people shouldn’t commit mortal sin. That’s not to say, of course, that if a person does commit a mortal sin that he cannot be forgiven. But cheating, dishonesty and mortal sin are not things to be swept away as: “everybody stumbles and falls.”

Heresy

The Only Heresy I see is you and your website

[fraterjohn]

MHFM: That means that you don’t think that this is heresy:

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”

So that shows us what kind of person you are; you totally reject the truth of God. So when a person like you says that the only heresy he sees is us and our website, well that speaks in our favor.

Supporting Heretics

Dear Brothers,

A lady at my work had her van repossessed and was given 2 weeks to get the money or lose the van. She was talking about how she was going to be $200 short, so I loaned her the money so she will have her own ride to work. This is her family's only vehicle so I felt like it was good idea to loan her the money. Since this was a loan, would this count for supporting heretics. Technically I'm still a N.O., so I suppose it doesn't matter as much. Sedevacantism sounds convincing, but I am still on the fence about it.

Sincerely,

Jude Miller

MHFM: No, we don’t think so. It’s possible that such an act of generosity might make her more receptive to the information you would give her about the traditional Catholic faith. But if she shows herself to not be receptive – or to be friendly, but not intent on doing anything about the information – then you shouldn’t help her at all in the future. We think you should recommend the website to her or give her a DVD.

Also, you need to become convinced of the sedevacantist position. Heretics cannot be Catholics, and the Vatican II antipopes are heretics.

Debates

Brothers,

I listened to your e-exchange debates this morning as well as the latest section of the Papacy program. Of course, I will need to listen to the papacy segment again to really take it all in. It's fascinating to me. The debates, on the other hand… that first guy: the 'apologist.'… I must say I agree with one of your readers that said only an evil spirit could argue in such a twisted way. And he wouldn't even properly let you speak. His 'arguments' were sheer lunacy. The second guy, the baptism,heresy,schism guy. . . I just don't know what to say. One minute he seemed to genuinely want to learn from you, then the next minute he's saying you haven't proven the point because he himself disagrees with certain teachings of the Church which you quoted for him. A bit of bad will there, me thinks. Either way, I always learn alot by listening to you instruct and refute. I love learning the history of the Church and the truths of our Faith.

S…

Reader on Cheating

Dear MHFM,

This is dedicated to the person on the e-exchange's who claimed that cheating at a serious game of Monopoly (or any other competition for that matter?) does not constitute a grave matter.

I am now going to quote something I read recently from the the book, The Secret of Confession by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan (Tan Pub., 1992 edition; orig. published in 1936; pages 65-66) I think you will find it relevant:

"Yet, dear Madam, the sin of the Angels was a thought of revolt, and as a result a third part of those glorious spirits lost their thrones in Heaven. It was the eating of a little fruit by our First Mother , Eve, that proved the undoing of the human race. Was it not an act of disobedience that deprived Saul of his throne, and was it not a sinful glance that led holy David to the commision of a heinous crime? An act of vanity too, lost him 70,000 of his subjects. Did not the venerable Eleazar sacrifice his life rather than eat swine's flesh? And what about the death of Oza and Ahio for daring to touch the Ark?

"Dear Madam, you fail to see that it is not the trifling act which is wrong, but the principle involved: the malice of the offense against an infinite God, to whom we owe our love, our gratitude and our allegiance. Surely, if God died on account of sin, sin must be dreadful. If sin is punished by Hell-fire, sin must be enourmous. When you make light of sin, you judge not Catholics, but God Himself." (emphasis my own)

Overwhelmed

I was, since yesterday, reading and listening to some of the information i came across the internet particularly in your website, mostholyfamilymonastery.com, regarding this issues about Vactican II. the truth is i am overwhelmed about the information i have been reading and listening to that, until now, i never thought that our Catholic Church is greatly divided between bishops/priests that supported the Vatican II teachings and to those who did not. for a while now, this created a sad note in my heart for i did believe we are one united church under the Catholic Church, the one true Apostolic Church founded by our savior, Jesus Christ. i never had any idea that their is a wide schism going on underneath the Catholic Church and i believe many catholics in my parish doesn't even know about the existence of this division" (my lack of better word to describe it).

i am troubled about these things which i've read and listened to...i will pray for enlightenment and please pray for me that i will be enlightened about the real issues and to the Truth thank you and peace be to all of you!

MHFM: Well, there isn’t a schism going on in the Catholic Church. It’s that the Vatican II “Church” is not the Catholic Church, and that those who incorporate themselves into this new, false, phony, counterfeit “Church” by embracing its heresies have left the Catholic Church. You must recognize that the New Mass is invalid (The Invalid New Mass), and that you must therefore get out of your parish.

Baptism

Dear Brothers, I have recently come across your web site and am trying to take it all in. I have felt like a lot of the holiness has been removed from the mass ever since vatican II. When I took classes to have my children baptised 20 some years ago I was told then that it was not really necessary, that God would take care of them. I have many questions for you but right now if you could answer one for me. What about the good people that died before the coming of Jesus who were not baptized. Where are they? I think of what Jesus told the man being crucified beside him, who asked Jesus to remember him when he entered his kindom and Jesus said this day you will be with me in my kindom. Thank you

Pat

MHFM: We get this question a lot. It’s addressed in our book. The law of baptism became obligatory on all after the Resurrection. The requirements to be saved under the Old Law, or to get to the Limbo of the Fathers, were not the same as the requirements to be saved under the New Law. The Good Thief was saved, or made it to the Limbo of the Fathers, under the Old Law.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Medjugorje

Greetings again!

I keep reading interesting things from your website. I didn't see anything on Medjugorje so I would be interested in knowing what you think of it. Maybe you can do an article telling people your thought on Medjugorje. I'm Croatian but I don't know much about Medjugorje…

MHFM: Medjugorje is proven to be false because it has blatant heresies in its messages. Here are some quick facts: The False Apparitions at Medjugorje [PDF].

Limbo

Dear Brothers,

A Novus Ordo friend is now perplexed about its recent demolition of the existence of Limbo, and has asked me, a Traditional Roman Catholic,"How can they keep changing so much of what we formerly believed?" I want to answer correctly since her doubt must be a gift from God, but can only find original references to the existence of Purgatory. Can you help me in directing her to a specific encyclical or biblical reference? It could be crucial in getting her to understand the deform of the Reformation revisited by imposters within the Church!

Wishing you God's continual blessings,

Cecilia Buse

MHFM: Yes, all the references are found in sections 10 and 11 of our book: ► Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file]. There one will find numerous dogmatic statements which teach that all infants who die without Baptism are not saved. One will find the infallible statements which declare that all who die in original sin only (i.e. unbaptized infants) or in mortal sin go to Hell, and that infants who die without Baptism go to a part of Hell where there is no fire. This place is known as “the Limbo of the Children.”

Website

I really enjoy your website and I think it should be ranked number ONE in the whole world. Truly God is watching you guys on this great mission to save souls especially in the darkess times in Church History. God bless you and I will keep you in my prayers. Good day.

Bernardo
Oregon

Comment

I just listened to your recent telephone debate with the Vatican II apologist. What I found interesting, and perhaps revealing, was his repeated use of the phrase "that would be between him and the deity." He used this response at least twice, I think actually three times, when you asked him if a particular hypothetical person (a non-baptized infant, a Rabbi, etc) could be saved. That choice of a word to describe God (as opposed to say "Jesus" who is our judge) struck me as more appropriate for a Mason, or a Unitarian, than for a Christian. Of course if you really dissect the Vatican II belief system there really isn't much difference.

William T. Mulligan, Jr.

Europe

I'm live in France and more and more people begins to awake now. It would be nice to have your videos translated in french and also in spanish, italian and german.
I think many poeple in Europe wants to know the truth now, but they need news and documents like those...

Regards,

Yann de Grendel

Bad Companies

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

Thank you for all the info on the website. It has been a great resource for me over the years. I want to ask you a question.......

With the incredible number of corporations that either directly or indirectly support causes which are anathema to our Catholic faith, is it necessary, or better yet even possible, for me to insulate myself against companies that support homosexual causes, abortion, perversion, sinful behavior etc. etc?......

It seems the list continues to grow every year, and I would be changing companies constantly. Also, I really don't believe that the companies that claim not to support these causes don't support them. I think they just insulate themselves by funneling money through different channels, all the while getting money to these causes........

I'm just a little man out here in this cesspool of a society trying to practice my traditional Catholic faith, stay in a state of grace and save my soul. I try to lead an extremely simple Catholic life ........Am I in a state of sin because the cereal I ate for breakfast was manufactured by a company who makes donations to homosexual causes, or the insurance I have on my 17 year old car is from a company who donated to planned parenthood?...............Why do I have the feeling, the next choices I would make would also support something just as reprehensible to me..........

God Bless you both and the zeal you have to help people come to the Catholic faith and save their souls...........

Ray............

MHFM: Thanks for the question. Since almost every company with which one would do business is involved with or supportive of something bad, we don’t know how one would avoid it. So we don’t believe there is any sin in the things you mentioned. To buy a product from a company which supports bad things is not to compromise the faith. We would say that if it’s easy to avoid – if there’s known and easy-to-use better alternative – then one should obviously take that option in purchasing things, but one could spend his life trying to avoid getting things from companies implicated in bad causes. When it comes to investing, however, we would say that you should try to avoid companies supportive of notoriously evil causes.

One should focus his or her efforts on what really matters and makes a difference: adhering to, living, promoting and spreading the true Catholic faith and not compromising with heresy.

More Reader Comments

It was sad to listen to that V2 apologist from Chicago. It was pitiful how little he knew of Catholic teaching. It was so obvious that he was clueless.

Patrick Walsh J+M+J

---

I just finished listening to your debate with the so-called apologist from Chicago. He obviously doesn't understand real Catholic teaching, but that is to be expected by a modernist in the Novus Ordo. It was aggravating listening to him speak, because he just didn't have a clue and was trying desperately to debate matters he just doesn't have any knowledge of. It must be very trying on your part to speak with people who are so ignorant of true Catholic teaching. My nine year old son knows and understands more about the Catholic faith than he does. Oh well, it just goes to show that some men are just not of good will and refuse to seek and accept the truth.

MHFM: Yes, of course the real problem is not primarily the fact that he was unaware of a fact or facts he should probably know. It’s that 1) he had a chance to look at the truth, 2) rejected it, 3) convinced himself that he understood such matters and 4) refused to listen when someone was offering to share what the Church actually teaches with him. With all of that considered, his ignorance of the basic facts he was arguing about is intolerable, in addition to his utter rejection of clear Catholic dogmas.

Comments

Dear brothers in Christ,

I've just listened the telephone conversation you had with V2 apologist. All I can say about the apologist's position on Catholic Church teaching is that he was making a mockery on Jesus words:"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." (Matthew 5,37). Indeed, a modernists's view (i.e. the devil's view) that every notion and the meaning of every word in the gospel and Church's teaching is fuzzy has just one purpose--to destroy the Tradition and the gospel. Of course, that view is autodestructive too, but that IS the devil's aim—to lead his adherents to total destruction…

Let our Mother protect you. Please remember me in your prayers.

Vladimir

------

The gist of this Vatican II "apologist's" argument seems to be that If someone doesn't know about Christ and the true church, , then how can they be responsible for what they don't know? Nevertheless the Catholic church has dogmatically defined that outside of the Catholic church there is no salvation.

God does not condemn the innocent to hell. The fact is, they don't know because they don't want to know. "Seek and ye shall find...." They've stopped seeking and therefore they are not innocent.

I think that poor man tied himself into a knot and was left without words. Only an evil spirit could argue in such a twisted manner and believe he was being logical. It's frustrating to argue with these people, but there's always hope that a spark of truth might enter their minds and change their thinking…

New Debate

MHFM: The guy who wrote in below defending Vatican II, who called us “loons,” agreed to debate/discuss these issues on a recorded phone call. He turns out to be an apologist for the Archdiocese of Chicago (that’s what he claims). This audio is revealing. It covers Vatican II and whether it teaches heresy, the salvation dogma and salvation issues, what is dogma and more…

Debate with Vatican II apologist [47 min. audio – May 21, 2008]

This will be found permanently in the Telephone Conversations section of our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs.

Loon

I think you folks are a bunch of loons. The Council of Vatican II was rightly called by The Bishop of Rome. You don't like it's contents so you choose to distort it. I think you need to wise up and stop being as little bishops unto yourselves turning people away and causing confusion. To me you are no better than the person Christ spoke of in Scripture where He said most succinctly, "It is far better for that person to have a mill tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea than to have them deceive even just one of My Little ones". Hey, that wasn't me and The Catholic Church didn't start in 1960.

MHFM: Any honest person who knows the Catholic faith and reads this file can see that it’s you who are the bad willed loon: The Heresies in Vatican II [PDF File]. Vatican II was called by a manifest heretic who, according to Catholic teaching, could not have been a valid pope. No, the Catholic Church didn’t start in 1960. The Vatican II sect promulgated its many heresies against the Catholic faith in 1965. You are no better than the person Christ spoke of in Scripture when he said, most succinctly, “He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God” (John 8:47). When you go to bed at night, think about the fact that you have defended Vatican II’s heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion. We recognize that you heretics care almost nothing about the issues of faith, but some of you get sentimental and defensive at the thought that non-Catholics may receive it. Yet, you remain oblivious to the fact that your sect officially teaches that it’s okay and therefore rejects Catholic teaching.

Meditation

Would it be possible for you to recommend some books for personal Catholic daily Meditation? Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my e-mail. A reply would be most welcomed.

I remain,

Jane

MHFM: We recommend lives of the saints and other books of that nature. We offer some of these at our ONLINE STORE. Preparation for Death, True Devotion to Mary and The Secret of the Rosary are among the most important.

Woman who converted

Blessings to all brothers & sisters in Christ;

As I read through the e-exchanges posted on the MHFM website, it is apparent that the truth is being presented to many. Many website visitors voice heartfelt gratitude that they have finally found a source of the truth about Catholic dogma, as it has been, unchanged, from Christ, through the apostles, and remaining unchanged today. I share this deep gratitude, and I owe my "discovery" of the true Christian (Catholic) faith to Brothers Michael and Peter. Their patient guidance, willingness to speak truths that are painful to hear, and humble reassertion of truth in the face of spiritual, verbal, and physical realm attacks is utterly unique in my experience.

I came to find the true faith after a lifetime of spiritual confusion. Three years ago, my desire to know the truth intensified to the point that I spent much of my spare time, and neglected other concerns, to study the scriptures and the various sects which claimed to hold the truth. During that time, I essentially learned what was contained in the scriptures, and repeatedly could not resolve scriptures with the teachings of the various "Christian" religions. Simultaneously, I was becoming increasingly aware of the deteriorating condition of the world, and Satan's many ways of corrupting society (political, social, cultural, and supernatural/spiritual).

Though I often went to the internet to research various religious issues, I really only stumbled on MHFM's website. I was riveted to my computer screen until the wee hours of the morning, only to dose for a while, and go back and read more. With a combination of elation and horror, I realized that the truth had laid buried in the dogma of the Catholic Church, all along. (Elation, because I had finally confirmed the truth, and the promises of Christ; horror, because I was suddenly painfully aware of how much my life had offended God). My joy, however was greatly increased when I was finally able to speak with one of the brothers by phone.

Because of the condition of the world, I have, of necessity, become skilled in sensing persons' motives and degree of honesty. Over the course of our conversation, I realized that the brother to whom I was speaking was free of guile, ruthlessly committed to the truth, completely loyal to Christ's church, while having perfect charity toward God (first) and me, in my awkward childlike need for the milk of the Word.

This has been the single most important information of my life, and indeed, my salvation. It was without hesitation that I donated to MHFM, according to my means. I continue to do so, as it is our sacred responsibility to support the Church, in its undefiled, undiluted form. I know of no other organization that is presenting the whole truth, which is the only truth (since a half truth is a lie).

More recently, I have become increasingly aware of how effective MHFM's website has been in "finding" others out there, who are fertile ground, ready to receive the seed of the gospel, in its whole, undefiled purity… But, in this Great Apostasy, many seeds of the Word must fall on rocky, infertile, dry soil, for each seed that takes root on fertile, well-watered soil. MHFM is successful in finding, and skilled in nuturing, those good-willed recipients of the Word.

…That's wonderful news, but there are also other, maliciously heretical websites out there, designed to confuse the people, and destroy souls. Satan is the deceiver and the author of confusion. This lamp, which is Most Holy Family Monastery's website, must not be allowed to be hidden or obscured by those who would create confusion and uncertainty.

We are clearly in the midst of the Great Apostasy. A succession of antipopes has been seated in Rome. The battle lines are drawn. Billions of people are oblivious to Satan's increasingly successful plans to destroy God's creation…

Gratefully, In Jesus Christ,

Linda Low

V-2 Seminaries, EWTN

The more I read your website- the more I'm CONVINCED that this Vatican II garbage is just that...GARBAGE! The Vatican II Sect claims to be oh so in tune with the Lord, yet, when I visited a friend of mine at the local seminary- I was encouraged to attend a concert by a band named "VATICAN JUSTICE" and what I saw absolutely horrified me. Seminarians dropping the proverbial "F-Bomb", engaging in what is no more than "dirty dancing" and the list goes on. Add to that, the Vice-Rector of the place has a J.C.L., yet they have a radical O.P., nun as the Canon Law Professor PLUS a 'FORMATION" advisor! Needless to say, I got out of there rather quickly. My attachment to the Vatican II Sect was left at the door after that disgraceful spectacle.

You might also be interested to know that having gone through the EWTN Archive, Father Benedict Groeschel (ANOTHER MANIFEST HERETIC OF THE WORST BREED) was interviewed about the vocation crisis which has been brought about by idiots like him who are "clinical psychologists!" His comment was, "Don't come to us just to try us out- come to us because Christ is calling you!" What Father Psycho-Babble has said has alienated NUMEROUS GOOD POTENTIAL VOCATIONS. Perhaps he forgot simple logic??? If one believes Christ is calling and you're rejected by a HERETIC before you can even test the call, how can you know?

There is FAR TOO MUCH WRONG with this Vatican II nonsense- it's been going on since I was in 7th Grade. As I've mentioned before, I know the theology from A-Z. The question now becomes, what are the options, AND is there a bishop who would ordain me? There are souls to be saved- and I'm ready for battle!

I look forward to your reply.
-[Name removed]

Resources

All of your resources have provided me with the invaluable assistance in my regular evangelical work among the disbelieving and the deceived.

Mark Stabinski,

New Jersey

Mother of God

I'm going to order your dvd's and delve deeper into this issue with them, thanks for your response.

Now I'm not much of a theologian but I do have another question for you maybe you can answer. Is it correct to say that Mary is the Mother of God, or should it be said that Mary is the Mother of God the Son, because she didn't actually Mother the Father or the Holy Ghost? Thanks for your help on these issues.

Brandon

MHFM: It is absolutely correct to say that Mary is Mother of God. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God; and Mary is His Mother.

Council of Ephesus, Can. 1, 431: “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the Mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh), let him be anathema.”

The key to understanding the accuracy of the title “Mother of God” is recognizing that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one divine person who had two births. He was begotten before time of the Father, and born in time and in His humanity of the Virgin Mary. Of course it’s true (and should be understood) that Mary did not give birth to the divine nature of the Son of God (which is uncreated and from the Father from all eternity), but to His human nature.

Dogmatic Athanasian Creed: “The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty…. We believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man. He is begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time: perfect God, perfect man…”

Since Jesus Christ is one divine person (contrary to what the heretic Nestorius taught), she truly and absolutely is the Mother of God.

Nestorius said that Mary should be called “Christ-bearer,” not God-bearer or Mother of God, because he heretically divided the one Christ into two persons and said that Mary gave birth to the human person. But the truth is that Jesus Christ is one divine person with two natures, and Mary is truly His Mother for having given birth to Him in regard to His humanity.

Council of Chalcedon, Definition of Faith, 41: “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation…”

Council of Ephesus, Can. 2: “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father was united to a body by hypostasis and that one is Christ with his own body, the same one evidently both God and man, let him be anathema.”

Council of Ephesus, Can. 5: “If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as “the Word became flesh,” and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.”

Creation Video, Protestant writes

…I am a Christian, and also an engineer; and loved your Creation video. What is interesting is that I was once a geotechnical engineer and often had to work with geologists that used the theories of stratification. Also watched some of the video with respect to rock music, abortion, and the Masons; also good stuff; some that I was aware, some of it new revelation, especially the ties with he Mofia. Also read some of the Vatican II article and when you look at the pictures and the methods of worship; I concur that something definitely looks wrong!

I also do like that you do take a stand on many issues with respect to the Catholic Church and the Protestant movement; but just as even Paul was often in error, (he even admitted it) so was Peter; so was Mary; and all of mankind. All of them needed Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord. Jesus himself rebuked even his mother Mary in the Book of John when he said it was not his time to show himself to the world. Despite this knowledge, he still honored his mother and thus, the miracle of Water to wine occurred. These are some of the issues I have that I struggle with in the Catholic Church…

The video goes on and discusses that a infallible Pope is needed to make decisions when there is controversy; in this I question the circular reasoning that was conveyed when it said of the problems in the Protestant movement and that they supposedly listen to the holy spirit and yet constantly argue over doctrine. Isn't it true that the Catholic church is in the same dilemma? …

John 21:15-17

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

This is another popular scripture that leads us into the Pope being infallible. I look at it and the first thing I notice is that Peter was hurt; and he was hurt because Jesus asked the question 3 times reminding him that he denied Jesus 3 times. This in some ways shows how, despite Peter being imperfect; the Lord had destiny and purpose for him; but once again; only if Peter chose to walk into the revelation and say yes. If he had said no; just as Ester; God would have found someone else to fulfill his will. In reading the scripture; I sense the acknowledgement that Jesus is truly the son of God, perfect in every way; and by faith alone in Christ alone; am I saved…

I have been a Presbyterian, saved as a Baptist, baptized in the Gulf of Mexico, married as a Methodist; been a member of the Lutheran Church; have attended many Catholic services; and am currently a non-denominational… I have come to the conclusion that no one sees perfectly, no one knows all; and that only by the acknowledgment of our sins and the blood of Jesus Christ are we saved. Yes, baptism of water is important, but the Lord also says that we shall be baptized with fire also. I still bank on John 3:16 myself.

Cameron A Moline, P.E.

MHFM: We’re glad that you contacted us. You need to look at this section of our website: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs. In it you will find audio programs which prove, from the Bible, that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope and that Justification by faith alone is rejected by the Bible. The verse you quote from John 21 clearly proves Catholic dogma on the Papacy. Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter. What does that mean? It obviously means that Jesus put him in charge of His whole flock. It’s really simple, if you look at it honestly.

As far as water baptism goes, the Bible could hardly be more clear that it’s necessary for salvation (John 3:5; Mk. 16:16; 1 Peter 3:20-21; etc.). The “Refuting Protestantism” section of our website addresses some of the other things you bring up, such as the infallibility of the pope. Papal Infallibility is found in Luke 22:31-32, which mentions Peter’s unfailing faith. The audios explain under what conditions a true pope is infallible. Christ founded one Church, the Catholic Church. It’s the only historical, logical and Biblical one. You cannot be saved if you remain outside of it, for the version of “Christianity” you are following is a man-made separation from the one Church Christ established.

Baptism of Desire

Dear Dimond Brothers,

     I have listened to some of your radio programs and read some of your stuff. I like a lot of it, its good to listen to something that has to do with Catholic stuff once in while instead of the normal crap that is on the radio or TV.

     Now I have one question for you regarding your position on Baptism. In the Gospel when Christ was being Crucified he told the thief who was also about to die 'Today shall you be with Me in Paradise' to the robber. Now what I think happened was that the robber was not baptized by water but he had received grace from God. I would like to know what you think of this. Also another point I would like to point out is that Saint Thomas wrote about other forms of Baptism, like Baptism of Desire, of Blood so on, and so forth. And I heard on one of your programs you guys stated that you can't read what a Saint says and rely on it. Well in my understanding that in order for someone to be Canonized the Church conducts a huge investigation of their lives and all their works. Specifically anything they wrote is examined for any bit of heresy or false doctrine. This indicates to me that Saint Thomas' writings on Baptism of Desire were not contrary to the teachings of the Church. One final point I would like to make on this issue. You also cite that a manifest heretic is "ipso facto" excommunicated from the Church. So if believing Baptism of Desire is a heretical, how can Saint Thomas and all the many other Saints that wrote about Baptism of Desire be in Heaven?

     I am not asking these questions to be quarrelsome but I just want to know how you reconcile these things with your position of no Baptism but the Baptism of Water. I thank you guys for your radio program and for the work you are doing in exposing the false Vatican II church and I wish you the best. God Bless.

Brandon Martinez

MHFM: All of those things you asked about were addressed in our book. ► Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file]. There is a section on each point; the issues involved are discussed in detail. First, the Good Thief was saved under the Old Dispensation, before the law of baptism became obligatory on all. Second, saints can be wrong and have made many mistakes. That’s why a few E-Exchanges back we cited St. Thomas himself on how one must follow the teaching/Tradition of the Church over the opinion of any doctor whatsoever, if the two authorities should ever be in disagreement.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 12: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.”

Saints are human beings and can make mistakes, even on matters pertaining to truths of faith. This is especially true when we’re talking about finer points or points where there has been some disagreement or reason for confusion. A heretic is someone who is obstinate against a teaching of the Church.

You also mention that the Church made an investigation into the writing of St. Thomas. Yes, the same goes for the writing of St. Gregory Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church. He rejected baptism of desire and, guess what, the Roman Breviary even says that there is nothing in his writing that can be called into question!

St. Gregory Nazianzen, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…

“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1012.)

Here is what the liturgy has to say about the teaching of the great St. Gregory Nazianzen, who clearly rejected baptism of desire. A reading for the feast of St. Gregory Nazianzen (May 9) in the Roman Breviary states:

The Roman Breviary, May 9: “He [St. Gregory] wrote much, both in prose and verse, of an admirable piety and eloquence. In the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing to be found in his writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic faith, or which anyone could reasonably call in question.”

Most importantly, the dogmatic teaching of the Church agrees with St. Gregory’s position on this point; it doesn’t agree with the position of St. Thomas. The dogmatic teaching of the Church doesn’t leave room for any salvation without water baptism. That’s why we reject “baptism of desire,” and why everyone else should as well.

Baptizing while rejecting Original Sin

[NOTE: THIS E-EXCHANGE IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR THOSE WHO SAY THAT BAPTISMS IN THE NOVUS ORDO RITE OR BY NOVUS ORDO “PRIESTS” CANNOT BE VALID IF THE PRIESTS DENY ORIGINAL SIN OR USE THE NEW MUTILATED RITE OF BAPTISM WHICH PRESUPPOSES ITS DENIAL. THERE ARE SOME OUT THERE AMONG THE “TRADITIONALISTS” WHO PROMOTE THIS IDEA.]

Brothers,

You are truly doing an important work in these times. You seem to be making one mistake though, and that is assuming that protestant baptisms are probably valid and therefore infants baptized by such are somehow in the Catholic Church as a result... While the Church has declared that heretics can baptize validly, the key to understanding this is to realize just what "kind" of heretics the church was refering to when she made that caveot so long ago. Historically speaking, at the time, the "heretics" in question were not protestants who DENIED the effect and meaning of the sacrament of baptism. No, the heretics in question at the time BELIEVED as the Church believed REGARDING the sacrament of Baptism. So, the orthodox, for example, while heretics, believe in the effect of removal of original sin and hence INTEND to do what the church intends to do (namely remove original sin and infuse with santifying grace). A protestant on the other hand is a different sort of heretic. A protestant does not believe that baptism actually removes sin and infuses sanctifying grace. When a prot baptises he intends only to perform an outward ritual to SYMBOLIZE faith in Christ. I don't believe there is a single prot sect that holds baptism to be regenerative. There is NO WAY most prots intend to do what the catholic church does in confering this sacrament. Actually their intentions run contrary by their explicit heresy concerning what the sacrament IS and DOES. A prot would have to believe he is removing original sin when performing the baptism or it lacks INTENTION. Perhaps some out there do,,, you never know, but as a rule,,,, we should not consider their baptisms as valid and lead others to think that. You can only say that the "intention" is "assumed" in the form IF there is no explicit public denial contrary that would indicate the person does not intend to do what the church does. Protestants by the very definition, absolutely make it clear in all their confessions and doctrine that they DENY any removal of original sin by pouring water and saying the words. I hope you agree with me on this. It needs to be made clear because most if not all protestants are not validly baptized due to their contrary intentions when performing it. If you don't believe me on this, just ask any protestant if he INTENDS TO: a.) Remove Original Sin b.) Infuse sanctifying grace c.) Incorporate into the mystical body of Christ when he baptises...So, while heretics CAN validly baptise, we have to be careful that the heretic's heresy doesn't impart a contrary intention to doing what the church does when baptizing.

Keep up the great work!

Joe S.

MHFM: No, you are not correct. The intention required in conferring the Sacrament of Baptism is extremely minimal. It’s simply to pour the water and say the correct words and not to interiorly fail to intend to perform the outward action. Therefore, even false ideas about original sin do not vitiate the intention to do what the Church does. This was confirmed by Pope St. Pius V, as shown in the quote below. So you are not at all correct in stating that the Church has not confirmed the validity of baptisms performed by Protestants or by those who hold heretical beliefs on original sin:

“According to Calvin baptism had not the power of taking away original sin, and the French preachers, in consequence, made it clear that in baptizing they had no intention of doing what the Roman Church understood by baptism. The Council [of Trent] had declared that the baptism of heretics was only valid if they intended to do what was intended by the Church of Christ, and the French Catholics therefore felt serious doubts as to the validity of Calvinist baptisms. The Congregation of the Council decided in favor of their validity, on the ground that, in spite of their errors as to the effects of baptism and the true Church of Christ, the preachers steadily maintained their intention of administering true Christian baptism, and of doing what the Christian Church had always done in conferring it. This decision was confirmed by [Pope St.] Pius V.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 17, p. 205)

Note: WE DO BELIEVE THAT CONDITIONAL BAPTISM SHOULD BE DONE IN MOST CASES WHERE THE BAPTISM WAS PERFORMED EITHER IN A PROTESTANT SETTING OR A NOVUS ORDO ONE. THIS IS BECAUSE UNLESS ONE IS SURE THAT IT WAS DONE WITH THE CORRECT MATTER AND FORM, ETC., IT SHOULD BE DONE CONDITIONALLY JUST IN CASE. ANYONE CAN DO IT. THE FORM OF CONDITIONAL BAPTISM IS HERE: File

But this has been posted to correct an error which has been spread, that heretics who deny original sin cannot validly baptize because they “don’t intend to do what the Church does.”

Not with Him

Good day,

Very recently I discovered your website. For me it is filled with many eye opening articles. I have begun to study them and am left with questions as a result. For instance the topic of salvation outside of the Catholic Church where below I have copied and pasted a piece of the article. The use of Luke 11:23 for me brought to mind Luke 9:50- Jesus said to him, "Don't stop him! Whoever isn't against you is for you." The two verses seem to contradict each other. If you could please reply to increase my understanding in this matter I would greatly appreciate it.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…” (Denz. 1000)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

Sincerely,

Lee Alexander

MHFM: Actually, when you look at the two statements they mean exactly same thing.

WHOEVER ISN’T WITH HIM IS AGAINST HIM

THEREFORE,

WHOEVER IS NOT AGAINST HIM (OR THEM) MUST BE WITH HIM (OR THEM)

If everyone who is not with Christ is against Him (Luke 11:23), then it follows that whoever isn’t against Him and His followers would be for them (Luke 9:50). But the liberals don’t like to think of it that way. They like to give the passage a heretical connotation, as if Jesus is saying that different religions or versions of Jesus’ Church are okay as long as they respect Jesus and His followers. In fact, one of us was conversing with a member of the Novus Ordo who quoted the words of Luke 9:50. We responded by quoting the words found in Luke 11:23. She didn’t think that our citation was correct. She failed to see that the two statements mean the same thing, and that she had a predisposition to interpret Luke 9:50 in a liberal sense, which is not in any way demanded by the text.

The person who is mentioned in Luke 9:50 was a person who was applying the teaching of Jesus, but wasn’t going around with the twelve at the time.

Mt. Sinai

Hello,

I was viewing your Creation and Miracles video online and at the very beginning you present Mount Sinai as the location of the covenant site between God and Moses. However, you also state in the same slide that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia. Mount Sinai is located as part of Sinai Peninsula which is actually part of Egypt. Thought I should bring this error to your attention.

--Jeremy

MHFM: No, it’s not an error. We and many others believe that the real Mt. Sinai is not in the Sinai Peninsula, but in Saudi Arabia. This very interesting DVD, which we sell, covers the issue of the real location of Mt. Sinai and the actual spot where Moses and the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.

The Exodus Revealed DVD

How can we know?

Hello,

I have several questions regarding your web site. For instance, if Pope Benedict 16 is not the legitimate Pope, who is?, and where is this person? Are you people at the monastery considered to be R. Catholics? How can one know whether or not you people are simply anti-Catholics seeking to bring down the church?

Thanks for taking the time to read this E-Mail, and I hope you find the time to answer my questions.

Frank Connelly

MHFM: There is no pope, just as there was no pope every time the true pope died. Yes, we are Roman Catholics. You can know that what we’re saying is correct because we’re backing it up with the teachings of the Catholic Church, the infallible teachings of the popes. That’s how you know that what we’re saying is true. That’s how you judge everything, by the standard of the Magisterium.

No Cardinals?

Dear Brothers,

I was reading an online discussion of Sedevacantism in which a Vatican II sect member asked this question to a Sedevacantist: "what does it mean for the concept of the Apostolic Succession once all your validly elected Cardinals die out and those remaining have all been appointed by an Antipope? As far as I can see then it would ultimately lead to a break in the succession and with that, the end of the Catholic Church."

Could you provide an explanation to this statement?

Thanks,
Dylan.

MHFM: First we would point out that “Apostolic Succession” refers to bishops, not cardinals. Second, cardinals didn’t elect the pope until the 11^th century. It was the clergy of Rome. So it’s possible that in the future a true pope could be elected by the clergy of Rome. Third, an argument only has validity if a person makes it specific and backs it up with a specific teaching of the Church. Thus, the Vatican II sect member would have to cite a dogmatic statement which declares that “x” number of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction must be around for the Church to exist, and then show that the sedevacantist position contradicts that statement. The Vatican II sect member cannot do that, of course, because no such Church teaching exists, and there is no proof that our present situation contradicts that specific number of required bishops. So his argument fails on all fronts. There is nothing whatsoever contrary to the indefectibility of the Church in what sedevacantists recognize.

Here are some additional thoughts on the matter: Must the Catholic Remnant Have Governing Bishops?

Zambia

Dear Brothers,

I do not know any priest here in Zambia who was ordained in the Catholic traditional rite. Most of those who where have since died or are retired. I do not even know, have never heard of any parish where the Latin Mass is offered.

Apart from under the Orthodox Church, I do not know any Priest ordained under the eastern rite.

I have read a few of the documents on your site and will be reading more though I rarely have access to the Internet.

Tell me, With these difficulties how do I deal the case of converting to the true Catholic faith under the traditional rite? Where would I go for Mass since there is no parish that I know of that is offering the Latin Mass in Zambia?...

In the Cross of Jesus,
Joseph Simushi.

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail. This file will give you the steps to convert.

The Steps to convert to the traditional Catholic faith and for those leaving the New Mass - Baptism and Conditional Baptism - the Council of Trent's Profession of Faith for Converts

As far as attending Mass goes, it looks like you will probably just have to stay home on Sundays. There is no obligation to attend Mass if you don’t have an acceptable option in your area, as explained in: Where to go to Mass or confession today? If you can find one of those retired priests you mentioned, you could go to confession to him. Just make sure that he was ordained before 1968 and says: “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Disturbed

I have listened to some of your audios and read your website and feel most disturbed especially about fatima and Sr Lucy.

Geraldine Dobson

MHFM: People should be relieved to know what’s going on. We hope that you do recognize what’s happening.

Wants to convert

Subject: I am interesting in converting to the Roman Catholic faith

Hi

My name is Sarah and I live In Tennessee and have attended mostly Baptist churches. I want to be a member of the Lord's one true church but I need to convert and I'm confused about where worship. Could you possibly help me to find a good church in the Knoxville Tennessee area for myself and my family. If you could take the time to do this for me since I am a little ignorant of what to look for and basically the entire Catholic faith I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks
Sarah

Baptized children debate

MHFM: The following two audio files concern a recent telephone conversation/debate one of us had with a person who has to be considered a radical “traditionalist” schismatic. (This person and his family had converted from the Novus Ordo through our website.) The two parts together are over 1 hr. and 30 minutes in length. This person holds the sedevacantist position and the necessity of water baptism, but he has fallen into certain schismatic positions. This conversation/debate concerns the theological question of when the baptized infants of heretics/schismatics (the infants are made Catholics at baptism) become schismatics and/or heretics themselves. The issue of the infallibility of canonizations also comes up in this conversation.

Baptism, Heresy, Schism - Tel conversation- Part 1 [1 hr.4 min. audio]

Baptism, Heresy, Schism - Tel conversation- Part 2 [27 min. audio]

[Note: this conversation concerns a finer point, which might not be relevant for those new to this information. It is posted primarily to refute the schismatic errors which have been embraced by a small number of radical “traditionalists.”]

Many are falling into disastrous errors and schismatic positions as a result of a failure to understand and accept the Church’s teaching on what constitutes heresy, schism, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc. This conversation/debate concerns, for example, the baptized children of Protestant heretics or the baptized children of Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics. It also concerns the baptized children of those who profess to be Catholics, but aren’t. Examples of this would include false traditionalist heretics/schismatics who obstinately agree with the heresies of the Society of St. Pius X and other false traditionalists who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Their children, who are baptized as infants, are Catholics. So at what point do the children of these heretics become schismatics and/or heretics?

We point out that any person baptized as an infant would cease to be part of the Church when the baptized person obstinately rejects a Catholic teaching (heresy) or obstinately separates from the Catholic hierarchy or the true pope (schism) or true Catholics. This radical schismatic and others like him say that our position is actually heretical. They say that these people become schismatics as soon as they hit the age of reason and/or go to a building which would be deemed out of communion with the Church. (These schismatics don’t like to make it clear whether they hold that these baptized infants become schismatics and/or heretics at the age of reason or whether it’s when they go to a building out of communion with the Church. This is because their position is false and contradictory, as the conversation shows.)

The tone of this conversation is at times intense and heated. This is because this person was not simply inquiring about our position or trying to learn more about the topic. He had already concluded that our position is heretical, after having had certain information available to him. This conversation is another example of how people are dishonest at heart and are liars. After contradicting himself repeatedly in this conversation, as well as changing his position and even admitting our position numerous times, this person remained obstinate in his schismatic position. This also shows how, not just liberal heresies, but also radical schismatic positions are ensnaring souls, separating them from the Church and leading them to Hell.

The reason that this issue becomes very relevant is because these schismatics believe that every church building where the leading pastor is out of communion with the Catholic Church is a non-Catholic church building. They further argue that, since it’s a non-Catholic church building, every person above reason at that church building becomes a schismatic at the age of reason. So they hold, for example, that every person above reason who goes to the SSPX churches is a schismatic. They would also have to apply this to every church building which recognized the post-Vatican II antipopes as true popes. Some of them stay faithful to their schismatic position in this regard. They conclude that Fr. Feeney (who died in 1978), Padre Pio (who died in 1968), etc. were all schismatics and/or heretics, as well as every person who thought that Paul VI was the pope – essentially every person who professed to be Catholic since 1965. Others abandon their schismatic position when the issue of the post-Vatican II buildings come up, thus demonstrating their hypocrisy. The point is that none of these schismatics understand the issue, and they are all schismatic for calling our correct position heretical.

One of the main errors of these schismatics is their argument that one doesn’t have to be obstinate to be a schismatic. That is wrong, as we see here.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, A. 2: “Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”

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

Another one of their primary errors is their argument that since people become heretics by denying the Trinity, even if they don’t know the Catholic Church condemns their heresy, that proves that heretics don’t need to be obstinate. They fail to understand that false opinions on the Trinity and the Incarnation, which destroy essential faith in them, always entail heresy. However, false opinions on other matters do not necessarily entail heresy unless obstinacy is present. This is pointed out in the conversation. This quote of St. Thomas is very interesting because it expresses exactly the position we hold and what was told to this schismatic in the conversation. It refutes the position of the schismatics.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 32, A. 4: “Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning [these other] such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy is shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest. So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy.”

This is a file which contains some quotes which are relevant to the teaching of the Church on these matters:

Quotes on Schism, Baptism, Heresy, Subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the Trinity and Incarnation

Doctors

MHFM: This is an interesting quote with regard to the authority of the Church – and the authority of the custom/tradition of the Church – over that of Doctors of the Church and theologians.

This would be relevant to the issue of the tradition of the Church which forbids prayer or sacrifice for catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907): “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.)

Non-Catholic College

Is it a sin to attend a non-catholic college.

Amanda Valles

MHFM: No, it’s not. They’re basically all non-Catholic anyway. However, we would say that one should try to avoid living on campus or with a pagan roommate, if that’s at all possible. Yes, one should avoid that like the plague. Living in a dorm with young college-age pagans (for whom the commission of mortal sin is basically a way of life is) would be, for almost everyone, a very bad spiritual situation. Even the spiritual life of a staunch traditional Catholic might suffer greatly in that situation. But, to simply answer the question, “is it a sin to attend a non-Catholic college,” the answer is no.

We would add, however, that if the college has a deep religious affiliation (e.g. some Protestant or Bible college), which would require some sort of acceptance of that sect, then obviously that would be a sin. But if it’s just a matter of taking secular classes, which don’t involve any acceptance of their beliefs, then it wouldn’t be a sin.

Lapsed

I have been a lapsed Catholic for years and wish to return to my faith.

In search of support to do so, I came across your website and to say the least, I am truly shocked and dismayed. I left the Church years ago for many reasons-I am not proud of most, but I felt inside a great hypocrisy in the Church that was part of my turning away.

Now, I am confronted with your website and in great need of true spiritual counseling to help me in my quest.

Would I be able to count on you to help me? I am truly sorry about my transgressions and want very much to return to the Faith but where else do I have to go but to people you say are not truly part of the Church?

Please, help me.

Thank you and God Bless,

Margaret

MHFM: It’s good to hear that you wish to return to the Catholic Faith. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that there isn’t hypocrisy in the Catholic Church. Rather, the Vatican II Church is a counterfeit Church; it’s not the Catholic Church. Our website explains what one needs to do to become a traditional Catholic. There are also many materials to listen to (Archived Radio Programs, Traditional Catholic Audio Programs) which can assist you with many of the questions you have. We hope you take a careful look at the website. We would also strongly recommend our DVD special from our store, as well as the important spiritual books we offer. We hope that you recognize what’s gone on with the Vatican II sect, and that you must not go to the New Mass, etc.

Justification Audio

Dear Brother,

I have been listening to your talk on the above subject. Apart from your interpretation of various passages which is a matter of honest debate, it is obvious that you are a very bigoted person. This attitude does nothing to bring about the Kingdom of God… What a pity this is when the world is looking for a clear message to help solve so many personal and social problems.

Yours sincerely

Rex Cousins

MHFM: If you can listen to the facts and passages which are quoted in that audio, and not see that the Bible rejects Justification by faith alone, then you have a problem with bad will.

Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon

MHFM: This is a new audio on the Papacy.

Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon - The Early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority - Section E of Part 2 [22 min. audio]

This section covers the evidence for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff at the second, third and fourth ecumenical councils (Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon). It also covers St. Jerome. This evidence from the councils is especially important because the Eastern “Orthodox” and many Protestants accept the first seven ecumenical councils. This section also responds to objections from certain canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon. These objections are frequently raised by critics of Catholic teaching. The section ends with more evidence from the early Church historians Socrates and Sozomen.

While this information from the early Church, which demonstrates that the full primacy of the Roman Pontiff was recognized, isn’t necessarily as “exciting” for some as the Biblical proof that St. Peter was the first pope, it is nevertheless important. This information from the early Church demonstrates to the Eastern “Orthodox,” and to many Protestants who look to these centuries, that what Jesus founded in St. Peter continued in the Roman Pontiffs and was recognized that way from the earliest centuries.

This is found permanently in our: Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy" * Audio Programs.

Potential Convert Call

MHFM: This is a telephone conversation we recently had with a potential convert. We post this for those who might find it interesting or are looking for more information.

Potential convert calls [9 min. audio]

Perhaps Catholic readers can also say a few prayers that this potential convert follows through and converts. We have created a section in our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs for these less important audio files, which are posted for those who are looking for more information or for more to listen to on these topics.

Jurisdiction

MHFM: Here’s a quote which is interesting to consider. It concerns the fact that Pope Leo X prohibited the printing of books without special approval:

“Therefore the pope [Leo X] forbids, with the approval of the [Fifth Lateran] Council, under pain of excommunication and of heavy fines, the printing of any book without the approbation of the Bishop and the Inquisitor, and in Rome of the Cardinal Vicar and the Mastery of the Palace.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 8, p. 398)

This law of Pope Leo X is obviously disciplinary in character. In our day, it is no longer in force. This is the kind of law which can be overturned or can pass out of force. However, it serves as another example of the drastic errors and contradictions into which people fall when they fail to distinguish between dogmatic teachings and disciplinary pronouncements – i.e, when the treat the latter like the former. Such errors are especially prevalent with those “traditionalists” who hold that no one today has jurisdiction. Their false position is refuted in this article:

Facts which Demolish the "No independent priest today has Jurisdiction" Position - Did St. Vincent Ferrer have jurisdiction? If you hold the position that "no independent priest today has jurisdiction," then your answer must be no. [pdf]

These people are prone to lifting ecclesiastical laws from past popes and councils – laws which were in force for a specific period in the past – and rigidly applying them to our present situation. In so doing, they demonstrate their complete failure to understand Catholic principles. As a result, they wind up coming to utterly false conclusions, such as the false idea that no priest today has jurisdiction or the false idea that every priest must be specifically sent by an ordinary. It’s also very common for these individuals to fall into schism. Yet they remain oblivious to the fact that ecclesiastical laws, such as the one quoted above, condemn them. If they want to be dogmatic with ecclesiastical laws, then they are excommunicated by the above law for publishing their schismatic and false writings on Jurisdiction and other matters.

West Africa

Hello, Bros Dimond!!!!!

I read with amazement some information on your website. I was seriously shocked to see so much evidence gathered against a church in which I was baptised and in which I spent the thirty years of my life so far. It's really terrible but fortunately true. I now feel as if I just woke up from a long nightmare. The first time I came across your website was by "sheer luck" if I can speak so. When I came acroos it, my first action was to close the window. But I told to myself: "I know that something was wrong about John Paul II but what exactly I can't specify. So I will read about John Paul II's heresies and get some information". So I opened your website again, clicked on the link to the article and started reading. Then I read many other articles. What I read shed a new light on my understanding of the PostVatican II Church.

Today all I learnt from your website seriously shook me… The popes from JohnXXIII are fake popes of a fake Church. The New Mass is not Catholic Worship. I radically stopped going to Novus Ordo Masses. The problem is that here in Burkina Faso (West Africa) and particularly in the "diocese" where I am there are no traditional priests ordained according to the Traditional Rite as far as I know. Even The bishops are Novus Ordo Bishops. I just stay at home. NO Mass and NO Confession. That is very dangerous for me. In my present state, I need some guidance as far as prayers and SPIRITUAL COMMUNION(I saw it mentioned in one of your articles, but I don't really understand how it is performed) are concerned.

I am thinking of ordering your 6DVD Special at the end of this month.. .Thanks very much and keep on fighting so that the true Catholic Faith shall ENDURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yours,

Michael ZOUBA, BURKINA FASO

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail. Since you have no other option, we would recommend looking for an old Novus Ordo priest, who was ordained before 1968. He could hear your confession, but you couldn’t go to his invalid Mass, of course. As long as he says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” that would be valid. Also, this file sets forth certain guidelines on the issue: Where to go to Mass or confession today?. Again, it’s great to hear about your interest. Keep praying and fighting for the faith.

Priests marry?

Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?

MHFM: In the Eastern Rite the discipline has been and is that married men are allowed to be ordained as priests. This is not so in the Roman Rite, and it shouldn’t be. This is because the Bible clearly teaches (1 Cor. 7) that the virginal state is superior to the marital state: Refuting the Protestant rejection of the Catholic and Biblical teaching on celibacy.

Meaningful Art

MHFM: This is an interesting quote about the tapestries in the Sistine Chapel. This meaningful display of art provides a powerful panorama of salvation history:

“Where the galleries ended the tapestries began, two on each side of the space allotted to the laity and three on each side of the sanctuary. On the left, or Gospel side of the wall the Call of St. Peter hung below the Destruction of Core and his Company; under the Giving of the Law on Sinai, the Healing of the Lame Man; under the Passage of the Red Sea, the Death of Ananias; under the Infancy of Moses, the Stoning of Stephen; under the Circumcision of Moses, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes. On the right, or Epistle side, under the Baptism of Christ was hung the Conversion of the Apostle St. Paul; under the Purification Offerings of the Lepers, the Blinding of Elymas; under the Call of the first Disciples, the Sacrifice at Lystra; under the Sermon on the Mount, the Deliverance of St. Paul from Prison; under the Committal of the Keys, the Preaching of St. Paul at Athens. This arrangement clearly shows the skill and care with which the choice of subjects for the tapestries had been made. They cover the walls of the Chapel as far as the galleries…” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 8, p. 304.)

SSPX priest writes in

Reverend Dimond,

I have great respect for you huge work about the doctrine of the Church refuting the errors of Vaticanum II.

Saint Augustine and Churchfathers give us the right attitude in such
matters :
- in fide unitas
- in dubio libertas
- in omnibus caritas

1) - in dubio libertas : I am not sedevacantist, and you aren't, isn't it? and this is a matter of opinion. The matter of sedevacantisme is a dubium, because nobody of us has the charism of infallibility. So I accept wholly you are a (even a fervent) catholic.

2) - in fide unitas : But your letter "A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire" is in contradiction with the Tradition:

a) with the condemnation by Pope Pius XII of "feeneyism", by his letter to the Bisschop of Boston (DS 3866-3873) See also DS 3879, DS 3871,

b) The council of Trent about this matter (DS 3869; 1524, 1543) See also DS 1532 (justification)

You wrote (I found it on internet: Pope St Leo .."THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."

We can try to understand the doctrine of Trente by this consideration: In the baptism of desire there a grace and there is no grace without the blood of Our Lord of course, all graces come from Him. This link between the grace and this baptism must be therefore spiritual, moral, e.g. through the desire which includes an (at least implicit) act of charity towards God, and love always unites according to St Thomas Aquinas. Certainly the highest love : the love of a martyr. So there is the baptism of blood. The church is celebrating therefore the Holy Innocent Children, killed for Jezus by Herodes.

Conclusion:

the practice and doctrine of the Church tells and shows us that "water" must be understood not literally as physical water, but rather as "washing".

3 traditional kinds of baptism WASH away the sins:

1) the water of the sacramental baptism washes through its link with
the Blood of Jesus and the spirit of S.,
2) the spiritual washing the desire of "the baptism of desire" washes sins away through
its link with the Blood of Jesus and the spirit of S.,
3) and the spiritual washing by the blood of the martyrs washes sins away through its link with
the Blood of Jesus and the spirit of S.

Let us stay with God trough His Holy Divine Tradition

God bless

In unione orationis Jesu Mariaeque,
E. Jacqmin +, sacerdos FSSPX

MHFM: We’re glad that you contacted us. Allow us to address the points you raise in your e-mail.

1) The sedevacantist position is not a doubtful matter. There is no doubt that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church. That’s a dogma. There is also no doubt that the Vatican II “popes” are heretics. Therefore, it’s certain that the Vatican II “popes” cannot sit in the Chair of Peter. To affirm otherwise is to profess a unity of faith with heretics who embrace false religions, teach salvation outside the Church and hold other heresies. That is contrary to the faith.

There is also no doubt that the Vatican II “popes” have used their supreme “authority” to bind their subjects (e.g. you) to Vatican II. We prove that here: Was Vatican II infallible?. The file proves that if they are true popes, Vatican II must be considered a true ecumenical council. In other words, if they are true popes the Catholic Church has officially taught the doctrines of faith or morals set forth by Vatican II. The idea that the Catholic Church could teach what Vatican II teaches is heretical. It is certain, therefore, that the men who imposed it are not true popes.

Yes, we are aware that the SSPX has attempted to explain these facts away. But their responses don’t add up. Our material has refuted all of those escape tactics. There is no way around the fact that the Vatican II “popes” are clearly non-Catholic heretics, and that they approved Vatican II in a solemn and binding fashion. Therefore, the position you currently hold is not consistent with Catholic teaching, and it must be rejected. The fact that the SSPX’s position is false is further demonstrated by the major inconsistency in the position of the SSPX vis-à-vis the Vatican II “Church,” its leaders and their official actions. Since the SSPX obstinately operates outside and against the hierarchy it deems legitimate, its position has to be qualified as schismatic. Please look at this file: The File on the Positions of the Society of St. Pius X [PDF file].

2) Allow us to address the points you raised about baptism of desire. All of those points are addressed at length, not in our newsletter, but in our book: ► Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file]. We really hope that you will take the time to look at it. You make reference to the act against Fr. Feeney, which was sent to the Bishop of Boston, dated Aug. 8, 1949. It’s called Suprema haec sacra or Protocol 122/49. Our book shows that this letter was not infallible. Even someone such as Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, who defended baptism of desire and concepts which lead to the idea of salvation for nonbelievers, admitted as much.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra… is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible, document. That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”

In addition to not being an infallible document, Suprema haec sacra is actually a heretical one. It teaches that people who are not members of the Church, who are invincibly ignorant of the faith, and who don’t belong to the Body of the Church can be saved.

“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggini, Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non pertinent), he mentions those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which, ‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’ since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’” (quoted and translated by Fenton, p. 102).”

In the process of giving its false analysis of Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved. That is heresy.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

What’s interesting is that even someone such as Msgr. Fenton admitted that one cannot say that the Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body. Hence, to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body is to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Church. Therefore, by its statement above, Suprema haec sacra taught the heresy that it is not necessary to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

This is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is heretical. They both deny the necessity of “belonging” to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

3) You make reference to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent on Justification. There is an entire section on this issue in our book. We hope you look at it. It points out that the passage says that Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it. It’s just as if we said: this wedding cannot take place without a bride or a groom. It doesn’t mean that Justification can happen with one or the other. The section in the book on this passage also shows that “aut” (or) is used in a similar way in other Church documents.

Moreover, that very sentence from the Council of Trent on Justification, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, which you reference, also says that John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written.” That contradicts baptism of desire, for baptism of desire necessarily means that there are exceptions to being born again of water and the Spirit. But the passage of Trent teaches that there are no exceptions; John 3:5 is to be understood “as it is written.” So, contrary to what some think, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent on Justification does not teach baptism of desire.

4) Next, you say that our rejection of baptism of desire contradicts Tradition. That’s simply not true. As our book shows, the ancient Tradition of the Church is that no man is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, including unbaptized catechumens. The book covers this in detail. It demonstrates that St. Augustine was the only person who taught baptism of desire in the early Church. St. Augustine also rejected the idea; he found himself on both sides of the issue, while the super-majority of the fathers opposed the concept. Here’s just one quote to illustrate the point that baptism of desire was not the belief of the early Church:

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) had the following to say about the actual Tradition of the Church in this regard: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.)

It is thus a myth – and one of the biggest myths out there among “traditionalists” – that baptism of desire was a majority view among the early Church fathers. That falsehood has been promoted by authors from the SSPX, such as Fr. Laisney. Fr. Laisney even asserts that baptism of desire is the “unanimous” teaching of the fathers. That’s an outrageous lie, as our book proves. The view of the fathers is that no man can be saved without baptism, including unbaptized catechumens.

5) You make reference to our citation of Leo the Great’s dogmatic letter to Flavian.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

You then argue that the water of baptism can be spiritually linked to Justification. But that would mean that the water referred to here can be spiritual water, which would reduce the meaning of this dogmatic statement to nothing. The water of baptism is not spiritual water; it must be actual water. If not, then the reference to the “water of baptism” is simply mythical, not dogmatic and actual.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

The water of baptism must be real water, as we see here. And that real water of baptism is inseparable from the Blood of Redemption and the Spirit of Sanctification (Justification), as Leo the Great infallibly teaches. The passage is dogmatically teaching us the real meaning of 1 Jn. 5:-8. That meaning is that there must be three witnesses present for Justification to occur: the water of baptism, the Blood of Redemption and the Spirit of Sanctification. But the very notion of baptism of desire is that Justification comes without the water of baptism. That contradicts the infallible teaching of Pope Leo the Great in his dogmatic letter to Flavian.

Further, everyone admits that “baptism of desire” is not a sacrament. But the Magisterium infallibly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, no man can be saved by a “baptism of desire.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”

Also, the SSPX doesn’t just believe in baptism of desire. It holds that souls can be saved in false religions. That is blatantly heretical. It rejects the dogmatic teaching of Pope Eugene IV, which is cited above.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

We are very glad that you contacted us. We hope you can see why no true Catholic can remain part of the SSPX or hold the false positions described above.

Trent?

[We post this as an example of how the defenders of the Vatican II sect are in a state of blindness. This person is a defender of the Vatican II sect. He says our material is not Catholic. You can tell that, by this question, he actually wonders how anyone who opposes the Vatican II sect could accept the Council of Trent. He is thus totally oblivious to the fact that it’s his antipopes who deny Trent and the other councils.]

Do you accept the teachings of the Council of Trent?

MHFM: Of course we do. It’s the Vatican II sect and its antipopes, such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, who reject it.

The Vatican II sect's Protestant Revolution: the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification