E-Mail Discussions
Item
#2 – Letter Exchange/Debate on John Paul II’s
heresies with President of “Catholics United for the Faith”
2/3/05 – Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter Dimond’s
Letter *new*
2/15/05 – Bro. Peter Dimond’s Response to Mr. Suprenant
*new*
Item #1
(7/30/04) –
-1/20/05-
First Letter to Leon Suprenant,
President of “Catholics United for the Faith” (CUFF), after he visited our
website and said that it promotes schism
Mr. Suprenant had written one of our readers and told him that
our website was promoting schism (because we don’t accept the Vatican II
religion). He informed this person that
he (Mr. Suprenant) was open to addressing his
concerns about the continuity of the post-Vatican II religion with traditional
Catholic teaching. So, I wrote him the
following letter.
THREE POINTS OF DISCUSSION REGARDING
JOHN PAUL II’S APOSTASY
January 20,
2005
Dear Mr. Leon Suprenant:
An
acquaintance of ours (…) has informed us that you visited our website (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com)
and stated that it is schismatic. You mentioned that you would be
“willing to address any specific questions or criticisms” that he might have
“concerning the legitimacy and continuity of the post-Vatican II” religion and
the Novus Ordo, if he is
interested in such an exchange.
I am writing
because I am interested in such an exchange. If you don’t mind, I will
begin by asking you about three points of John Paul II’s
teaching.
1. Do
you reject as heretical John Paul II’s repeated
teaching that Catholics should not proselytize the Schismatic Eastern
“Orthodox.”
Antipope
John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, Post-Synodal Apost. Exhortation, June 28,
2003: “At the same time I wish to assure once more the pastors and our
brothers and sisters of the Orthodox Churches that the new evangelization is in
no way to be confused with proselytism, without prejudice to the duty
of respect for truth, for freedom and for the dignity of every person.” (L’Osservatore Romano, July
2, 2003, p. V).
Antipope
John Paul II, Homily, Jan. 25, 1993:
“Doubtless,
more than ever the Catholic Church’s apostolic activity in those lands must
have ‘an ecumenical dimension’ capable of promoting, in every way, dialogue
among believers in the light of the principles enunciated by the Second Vatican
Council. ‘The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact,’ says the
Pontifical Commission for Russia, ‘is not proselytism but fraternal dialogue
among the disciples of Christ, a dialogue nourished by prayer and developed in
charity, in order to reestablish a communion between the Byzantine Church and
the Church of Rome which existed in the first millennium.”
This position
was also officially taught in the Balamand
Statement of 1993, which was approved by John Paul II. John Paul II
has also asserted that he does not want to proselytize the Eastern Schismatics in numerous Joint Declarations with them.
Since this is a fact, Mr. Suprenant, do you therefore
admit that John Paul II is a heretic who rejects the dogma (defined by Vatican
I) that Eastern Schismatics must be converted and
accept the Papacy for true Faith and salvation?
Pope
Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
"We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all
the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman
Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself
is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the
true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... This is the doctrine
of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and
salvation."
2. John
Paul II teaches that the Old Covenant is valid.
Antipope
John Paul II, Address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17. 1980: “The first
dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the
Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at
the same time within our Church…”
This is a denial
of the dogma, defined by the Council of Florence, that
the Old Covenant has ceased. Do you agree that John Paul II’s teaching that the Old Covenant is still valid is
heresy and apostasy?
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate
Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly
believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the
Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred
rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify
something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that
time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased,
and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after
the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to
them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save
without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that
after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could
have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for
salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they
cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All,
therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe
circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it
declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate
in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
3. John
Paul II has approved of the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on
Justification, which is blatantly heretical.
1)
Joint Declaration With Lutherans on Justification:
“# 5. THE PRESENT JOINT DECLARATION… does not cover all that
either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on
basic truths of the doctrine of justification and SHOWS THAT THE
REMAINING DIFFERENCES ARE NO LONGER THE OCCASION FOR DOCTRINAL CONDEMNATIONS.”
This means
that the remaining differences between Lutherans and Catholics on Justification
– for example, the fact that Lutherans don’t accept the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification as dogmatic – are no
longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations. This is blatantly
HERETICAL. The very fact that the Lutherans don’t accept the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification as dogmatic is an
occasion for their doctrinal condemnation.
Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:
"After this Catholic doctrine of justification [defined by Trent] - which,
unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified - it
seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not
only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and
avoid."
Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, On
Justification, Introduction, ex cathedra:"...the holy ecumenical
and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit... purpose to
expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of
justification… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to
believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this
present decree."
(2)
Joint Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification:
"41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the
Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of
justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran
churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations
from the Council of Trent."
This means
that none of the teaching of the Lutherans in the JD is condemned by the
Council of Trent! But in the JD (Joint Declaration), besides the other
heresies taught by the Lutherans, the Lutheran churches teach the heresy of
Justification by “faith alone,” which was condemned approximately 13 times
by the Council of Trent.
So, do you
admit that John Paul II’s approval of the Joint
Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification makes him a heretic?
Sincerely,
Bro. Peter Dimond,
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
Mr. Suprenant’s Response to Bro. Peter’s Letter
2-3-05
Dear Br. Peter,
Peace of Christ!
Thank you for your email, in which
you raise some serious concerns about certain teachings of Pope John Paul II. I
try to keep correspondence such as this private, but I will send a copy of this
email to your acquaintance [x], who put you in touch with me, and with whom I
have been corresponding sporadically the past couple years.
Before I start, I'd like to
make two preliminary observations. First, while it may seem to be a fine point,
I did not state that your website is schismatic. I did say that your website,
which Mr. [x] considers authoritative, "promotes schism and sedevacantism." From the perspective of someone who
believes John Paul II is the real Pope, this assertion is not controversial.
After all, even in your email you repeatedly refer to him as an
"anti-pope," "heretic," "apostate,"
"schismatic," etc.
Further, I think it's fair to
ask whether you are in communion with the bishop of the diocese where your
"monastery" is located. Who is your bishop? Who has given legitimate
Catholic Church approval for your monastic community?
Second, it's clear that your
rejection of Pope John Paul II is prior to the specific issues raised in your
email. I'm happy to provide some response to your questions, but my preference
would be to go to the source. I assume that you believe at some specific,
clearly definable moment in time Pope John Paul II (or, more likely, one of his
predecessors) went into schism and became an anti-pope. When do you believe
this occurred?
It seems to me that the burden
of proof is on you to establish this fact. If it weren't, then every Pope since
St. Peter would have the ongoing burden of justifying his legitimacy against
any and all criticisms, in essence having to constantly prove a negative.
You believe Pope John Paul II
to be an imposter, so you view his statements with a presumption of
discontinuity with Tradition. I recognize him as the Vicar of Christ and the
lawful successor of St. Peter, so I view his statements with a presumption of
continuity, thereby coming to quite different conclusions. Therefore, for this
dialogue to go anywhere, it's necessary to go back to the source of your
rejection of Pope John Paul II.
While deferring ultimately to
the Holy See as the proper interpreter of its own statements, let me address
briefly the three questions you raised.
Re: whether Catholics
should "proselytize" the Eastern Orthodox Churches
I don't think you know the
meaning of "proselytism" as the Church understands it. It means
"gaining converts by unworthy means, of forcing or coercing
consciences" (e.g., "bread Christians"-winning them over with
political and economic bribery and offices, etc.). To engage in dialogue with
our separated Christians and to have theological exchanges with them is simply
to encourage them toward full reconciliation with the Holy See. Vatican II left
no doubt that the whole purpose of ecumenism is to prepare separated Christians
for full communion in faith, worship, and government (Unitatis
Redintegratio, no. 3). Lumen Gentium affirms that the Catholic Church professes to
be the "one and only Church of Jesus Christ" and seeks her separated
baptized brethren to share that unity which she can never lose.
Vatican II emphatically
reaffirmed the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I on papal supremacy and papal
infallibility.
The Pope did not approve the Balamand Statement in toto.
In fact, on June 11, 1997, a joint letter from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Eastern Churches, and the
Pontifical Council for Christian Unity repudiated the sentiment of some Melkite Catholic Bishops in the Middle East who held that
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were already one Church. They dismissed an
ecclesiology that would downplay the need for full communion with the Holy See.
Re: status of "Old
Covenant"
The Old Alliance has not been
totally revoked. Its Mosaic ritual and ceremonial precepts have, but not the
Alliance as such made with the Jews manifesting the will of God offering
to the Jews and indeed to all men of all times the Promise and Gift of entering
into communion with Him. That aspect of the Old Testament is eternal. The
multiple alliances noted between God and Israel recounted in the books of the
Old Testament were at the service of the unique
Alliance that remains to spur conversion to Christ.
See Chapter 11 of St. Paul's
Letter to the Romans: "Has God rejected His people? By no means! . . . A
hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles
come in, and so all Israel will be saved . . . As regards the gospel they are
enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the
sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are
irrevocable."
Re: Joint Declaration with
the Lutherans on Justification
One must fairly assess Pope
John Paul II's approval of the Joint Declaration on
the Doctrine of Justification (JD), which the Church signed with certain
Lutheran groups in October 1999. First, the aim of the whole JD process from
the Catholic perspective was to bring about the restoration of Lutherans to
full communion with the Church. Second, a common misreading of the process has
been that the Church agrees completely with the Lutheran statements in the JD.
While the Church noted in the Official Common Statement (OCS) published with
the JD that it confirmed the JD "in its entirety," both the OCS and
the JD made clear that such confirmation included the acknowledgement of
ongoing and significant doctrinal disagreements. Further, one must read the OCS
and the co-published "Catholic Annex" to get an adequate understanding
of the Church's position on the JD (Please let me know if you need a copy of
either of these documents.)
Without full, unequivocal
agreement on the doctrinal issue of justification, some have wondered why
Church condemnations (anathemas) on this matter don't apply anymore to the
Lutheran position as expressed in the JD. Two observations should be made here.
First, an anathema is, strictly speaking, a penalty whereby the Church totally
separates a Catholic believer from the Church. Because contemporary Lutherans
were not baptized in the Catholic Church, nor
subsequently have been received into the Catholic Church, mere ecclesiastical
laws don't apply to them (canon 11 of current Code; canon 12 of 1917 Code).
However, Lutherans and all
other people are morally obligated to seek and embrace the full truth.
Anathemas would still apply to a Catholic who accepted the JD without the
doctrinal clarifications of the Annex. The Annex guides Catholic believers to a
proper Catholic understanding of those issues in the JD on which Catholics and
Lutherans have not achieved full, unequivocal agreement.
Second, regarding the Lutheran
teaching on justification as expressed in the JD, the Church does not condemn
the teaching because the Lutheran World Federation accepted the co-publication
of the clarifying Annex with the JD and the OCS. Lutherans still do not fully
accept Catholic teaching on the doctrine of justification as discussed in the
JD and the Annex. Yet, because of their explicit openness to the Catholic
position and because they did not formally and categorically deny the Catholic
teaching on justification (e.g., by rejecting the co-publication of the Annex),
the Church does not formally condemn this Lutheran group's teaching on the
matter. At the same time, the Church clearly recognizes that there are still
issues to resolve before the Lutherans can be restored to full communion.
Mr. [x] also raised the
question of Cardinal Ottaviani's intervention. This
point is addressed in detail in chapter 14 of The Pope, the Council, and the
Mass, by Kenneth Whitehead and James Likoudis.
This book is out of print (we're in the process of publishing a new second
edition), but I've enclosed a copy of the chapter from the first edition with
Mr. [x] hard copy.
In short, it ought to be noted
that Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the so-called
"Ottaviani Intervention," which was really
the work of M.L. Guerard des Lauriers,
O.P., then a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. Fr. des Lauriers would later become a
schismatic bishop who was illicitly ordained by Vietnemese
Archbishop Thuc, who himself was excommunicated until
he eventually repented and was reconciled with the Church.
Upon Cardinal Ottaviani's death in 1979, Pope John Paul II celebrated a
Requiem Mass for the Cardinal's "exemplary fidelity" to the Holy See.
His spirit was one "which is expressed in special attachment to Peter and
to the faith of Peter and, again, in keen sensitiveness to what the Church of
Peter is and does and must do."
If, as some "traditionalists"
have claimed, Cardinal Ottaviani's statements (noted
and quoted in PCM) expressing his acceptance of the reformed Rite of Mass were
forgeries, why didn't this heroic Cardinal, noted for his fidelity to Church
teaching and his holy life, publicly repudiate the lies that had been publicly
broadcast in his name?
When it is a question of
following the observations on the Mass of a group of theologians, or accepting
the judgment of the Supreme Pastor of the Church, there can be no contest. As St.
Thomas Aquinas noted, the judgment of the Pope is decisive and must be
followed, not that of dissenting theologians, no matter how eminent or learned.
I've tried to be as responsive
as I could be to the various questions and accusations raised by you and Mr.
[x]. I conclude with a simple, but earnest and sincere, plea that you reexamine
your opposition to the Pope. Surely we can discuss various points of doctrine,
but in the end, if we obstinately close our ears to the Vicar of Christ on
earth, we're headed toward ruin.
Sincerely in Christ,
Leon J. Suprenant,
Jr.
President,
Catholics United for the Faith
Bro.
Peter’s Response to Mr. Suprenant’s Letter
2/15/05
Dear Mr. Suprenant:
I’m sorry that
I could not get back to you sooner, but I’ve been involved with some different
things. In the course of this letter I will address your comments by
setting them off with >>> marks, and I will
add my own comments below.
In your
letter, you asked whether our Monastery is in communion with the Bishop of
Buffalo. The answer to your question is no Catholic Bishop exists in the
diocese of Buffalo. The Novus Ordo Bishop posing as the Catholic Bishop denies the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation, among various other dogmas. He
is not a Catholic Bishop, no more than were the Arian Bishops posing as
Catholic Bishops in the 4th century. But whether or not you
think our Monastery is legitimate is really irrelevant to this
discussion. Our discussion concerns the post-Vatican II religion vs. the
Catholic religion. You say that there is no discontinuity. So
please allow me to address your responses to the three points that I raised
about John Paul II’s apostasy.
1.
Regarding John Paul II’s Repeated Teaching
that we should not Proselytize the Schismatics
You write:
>>>>While deferring ultimately to the Holy See as the proper
interpreter of its own statements, let me address
briefly the three questions you raised.
Re: whether
Catholics should "proselytize" the Eastern Orthodox Churches
“I don't think
you know the meaning of "proselytism" as the Church understands it.
It means "gaining converts by unworthy means, of forcing or coercing
consciences" (e.g., "bread Christians"-winning them over with
political and economic bribery and offices, etc.). To engage in dialogue with
our separated Christians and to have theological exchanges with them is simply
to encourage them toward full reconciliation with the Holy See. Vatican II left
no doubt that the whole purpose of ecumenism is to prepare separated Christians
for full communion in faith, worship, and government (Unitatis
Redintegratio, no. 3). Lumen Gentium affirms that the Catholic Church professes to
be the "one and only Church of Jesus Christ" and seeks her separated
baptized brethren to share that unity which she can never lose.>>>>
Mr. Suprenant, a proselyte is “convert from one opinion, creed,
or party, to another.” (The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, p. 678)
To proselytize is to make converts. That is the meaning of the
word. Thus, when John Paul II repeatedly agrees that he has no desire to
proselytize the “Orthodox” Schismatics – and that unity with them is not achieved by
proselytism – it clearly means that he has no desire to convert them. To
deny this is to change the meaning of the word to your own convenience and to
attempt to defend the indefensible. This is further proven by the fact that
John Paul II never says himself that unity with the Schismatics
can only come if they accept the dogma of the Papacy and convert to the
Catholic Faith.
Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists not
only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach,
Summa Theologiae Moralis
1:746.)
I do not deny,
of course, that John Paul II also rejects proselytism by forcible tactics; of
course he rejects that as well. But it is neither accurate nor honest to
say that his many denunciations of proselytizing the Schismatics
only refer to forcible proselytism, when he doesn’t say that anywhere in the
context of the many things we quote to prove the point.
To further
prove the point, I will show you from other words of John Paul II that it is
his teaching that Catholics shouldn’t convert the Eastern Schismatics.
In his encyclical (Slavorum Apostoli – The Apostles of the Slavs) on Sts. Cyril
and Methodius (#27), John Paul II indicated that
Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to the
Catholic Church by teaching that unity with the Schismatics
‘is neither absorption nor fusion,’ which means not by
conversion. Mr. Suprenant, this phrase
from this very encyclical – “neither absorption nor fusion” in Slavorum Apostoli #27
– was directly referenced by the Balamand Statement
as the justification for its teaching that we should not convert the Eastern Schismatics.
Balamand Statement, #’s 14-15, 1993: “According
to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the sister
Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect
and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a
meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum
Apostoli, 27).15. While the
inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements
of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing
unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other
in order to ensure their salvation.”
This quote is
very important and, quite frankly, it totally refutes what you have said.
Here we see what the Balamand Statement, which was
approved by John Paul II, clearly teaches regarding the conversion of the
Orthodox: “there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to
the other in order to ensure their salvation.” This is a direct
denial of Vatican I and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation; but
how do they attempt to justify it? They “justify” it by using John Paul II’s own teaching in Slavorum
Apostoli, 27, and the very phrase he uses to
teach the same thing: namely, that unity with these schismatics
is “neither absorption nor fusion,” which means not by conversion. (By
the way, it is a fact that John Paul II approved of the Balamand
Statement, but you make the curious claim that John Paul II didn’t approve the Balamand Statement in toto.
Can you please document where John Paul II has said that he doesn’t approve of
the above teaching of the Balamand Statement?
If not, then why did you make that claim?)
But, Mr. Suprenant, in addition to the above there is more to prove
the point. On October 12, 2002, John Paul II and the Schismatic Patriarch of
Romania jointly denounced trying to convert each other by using the same phrase
again: “Our aim and our ardent desire is full communion, which is not
absorption…”(L’ Osservatore Romano,
Oct. 16, 2002, p. 5.) In his address on the same day, John Paul II
also told the schismatic Patriarch: “The goal is… to reach a unity which
implies neither absorption nor fusion…”(L’
Osservatore Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p.
4.) And to really drive the point home, in the same address to the Schismatic
Patriarch of Romania, John Paul II made this incredible statement:
“For
her part, the Catholic Church recognizes the mission which the Orthodox
Churches are called to carry out in the countries where they have been rooted
for centuries. She desires nothing else than to help this
mission…”(L’ Osservatore
Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 4.)
This means
that he has no desire to convert the Schismatics to
the Catholic Faith, but only to help their “mission.” And this clear
teaching of the Vatican II sect is why “Cardinal” Kasper, who was appointed by
John Paul II to a position to enunciate his views on this very topic,
stated clearly:
Cardinal
Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity: “… today
we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others
would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001)
And this
teaching is why hordes of Novus Ordo
Bishops throughout the world have enunciated the same thing, which they have
ultimately received from John Paul II:
“There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy
See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.” --Igor Kovalevsky,
Secretary General of the Novus Ordo "Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops"
of Russia, (Itar-Tass News Agency, May 7, 2004)
It couldn’t be
more clear, Mr. Suprenant; yet there is more.
John Paul II, following the lead of the apostate Paul VI, has repeatedly
declared that the Eastern Schismatics are no longer
anathematized or excommunicated.
Antipope
John Paul II, Message to Schismatic Patriarch Dimitrios
of Istanbul, Nov. 30, 1985:“To His Holiness Dimitrios
I, Archbishop of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patnareb...
We see there a happy coincidence for celebrating together the Feast of the
Apostle Saint Andrew on this twentieth anniversary of the lifting of the
anathemas.”
Antipope
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint
(# 17), May 25, 1995:
“At
the conclusion of the Council, Pope Paul VI sealed the Council’s commitment to
ecumenism, renewing the dialogue of charity with the Churches in communion with
the Patriarch of Constantinople, and joining the Patriarch in the concrete and
profoundly significant gesture which ‘condemned to oblivion’ and ‘removed
from the memory and from the midst of the Church’ the excommunications of the
past.”
Antipope
John Paul II, Orientale Lumen (# 18),
May 2, 1995:
“All
this praiseworthy work was to converge in the reflections of the Second Vatican
Council and to be symbolized in the abrogation of the reciprocal
excommunications of 1054 by Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I.”
Antipope
John Paul II, Address to Teoctist, October 12,
2002: “At the conclusion of the work of the Council, by a highly
significant gesture that took place at the same time in Rome and in
Constantinople, the reciprocal condemnations of 1054 were cancelled from the
memory of the Church.” (L’ Osservatore
Romano, Oct. 16, 2002, p. 3.)
Antipope
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint
(# 42), May 25, 1995:
“The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a
firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the
excommunications of the past,
Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places
of worship are sometimes lent out…”
These
statements are patently false and constitute a denial of Vatican I, which
anathematized anyone who does not accept the Papacy or Papal Infallibility,
such as the Orthodox. So, contrary to Vatican I, John Paul II repeatedly
declares that the Schismatics are no longer
anathematized or excommunicated even though they persist in rejecting Vatican
I. This proves again that John Paul II does not consider the Schismatics to be under anathema or excommunication for
denying the Papacy, and that he holds that they do not need to be
converted. It couldn’t be more clear, Mr. Suprenant,
that John Paul II is a heretic and a schismatic who denies Vatican I, as any
honest person will admit. This is further proven by a myriad of
John Paul II’s actions, including: giving $100,000.00
to the Schismatic Patriarch Teoctist; constantly
declaring that the “Orthodox Churches” are “venerable” and lavishing other
praises on these schismatic bodies and their leaders without ever mentioning
that they are heretics and schismatics who need to be
converted; acknowledging schismatic Patriarchs as the holders of “Sees”; giving
them relics, etc., etc., etc. All of these actions, as theologians teach,
also demonstrate his heresy – which is so clearly and repeatedly stipulated in
his words above.
2.
Regarding John Paul II’s Teaching
that the Old Covenant has never been revoked
>>>>Re:
status of "Old Covenant"
>>>The
Old Alliance has not been totally revoked. Its Mosaic ritual and ceremonial
precepts have, but not the Alliance as such made with the Jews
manifesting the will of God offering to the Jews and indeed to all men of all
times the Promise and Gift of entering into communion with Him. That aspect of
the Old Testament is eternal. The multiple alliances noted between God and
Israel recounted in the books of the Old Testament were
at the service of the unique Alliance that remains to spur conversion to
Christ.
See Chapter 11
of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans: "Has God rejected His people? By no
means! . . . A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of
the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved . . . As regards the
gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are
beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God
are irrevocable.">>>>
Mr. Suprenant,
the Old Alliance as such has been totally revoked. That is why
Jews cannot observe it without the loss of salvation (de fide).
The fact that the Old Alliance as such has been revoked is why Jews must accept
Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith for salvation, and that if they continue to
observe the Old Alliance there will be for them nothing but damnation. Do
you acknowledge that Jews who reject Christ and observe the Old Law will not be
saved? If so, then how can you say that the Old Alliance as such has not
been revoked? What could you possibly mean by such a statement?
Pope Eugene IV,
Council of Florence, Cantate Domino,
1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old
Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred
rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something
in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after
our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the
sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the
passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them
as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned
mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ
up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they
were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the
promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without
the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time
(the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the
other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and
not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless
someday they recover from these errors."
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate
Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The
Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those
who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in
eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the
devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of
their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such
importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments
contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and
practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that
nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if
he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom
and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope
Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61):
“The
first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by
the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin
after the promulgation of the Gospel.”
Pope
Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 59), March 1,
1756:
“However
they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as
everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ.”
Pope
Pius XII (1943): “… the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had
been abolished… Jesus made void the Law with its decrees… To such an extent,
then… was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the
Synagogue to the Church… that, as our Lord expired, the mystical veil which
shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent
violently from top to bottom. On the Cross then the Old Law died…” (Mystici Corporis #’s
29-30)
3.
Re: Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification
You write:
>>>>One must fairly assess Pope John Paul II's
approval of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), which
the Church signed with certain Lutheran groups in October 1999. First, the aim
of the whole JD process from the Catholic perspective was to bring about the
restoration of Lutherans to full communion with the Church. Second, a common
misreading of the process has been that the Church agrees completely with the
Lutheran statements in the JD. While the Church noted in the Official Common
Statement (OCS) published with the JD that it confirmed the JD "in its
entirety," both the OCS and the JD made clear that such confirmation
included the acknowledgement of ongoing and significant doctrinal
disagreements. Further, one must read the OCS and the co-published
"Catholic Annex" to get an adequate understanding of the Church's
position on the JD (Please let me know if you need a copy of either of these
documents.)>>>>
Since you brought these two documents
up, I will let you know that prior to composing my article on the “22 Heresies
in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification” I read all three
documents (the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans; the Official Common
Statement; and the Annex to the Official Common Statement) at least three
times, if I recall correctly. I also read the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (which I had read numerous
times before) ten times in a row so that the teaching of the Church would be
fresh in my mind and the heresies in the Joint Declaration easy to
discern. So, I am very familiar with all three documents pertaining to
this Joint Declaration with the Lutherans.
But it seems that each time I bring up
the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification with a Novus Ordo/Vatican II defender,
he makes reference to the two other documents that accompanied the Joint
Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, namely, the Official
Common Statement and the Annex to the Official Common Statement.
It seems that the Novus Ordo/Vatican
II defender thinks or hopes that the person with whom he is conversing
is ignorant of these two accompanying documents – so that he can pass off the false
impression that these two documents mitigate or explain away the heresies in
the Joint Declaration and that the other person, being unfamiliar with
them, will have no response. But since I am very familiar with both documents,
I can tell you that they do not mitigate or clarify the heresies in the Joint
Declaration at all; in fact, the Annex to the Official Common Statement is
arguably even more heretical than the JD itself (if that’s possible) because it
affirms, on the “Catholic” side, that Justification comes by faith alone!
Annex to the
Official Common Statement, made by “Catholic” side and Lutheran side:
"Justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone,
the person is justified apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).
So, here we
have the “Catholic” and the Lutheran side – in the Annex, the document that
people love to appeal to – declaring the very heresy condemned solemnly by the
Council of Trent in 13 different ways! Do you admit that this is outright
heresy? If not, then I must tell you that you are no different from a
Protestant.
You
write: >>>>Without full, unequivocal
agreement on the doctrinal issue of justification, some have wondered why
Church condemnations (anathemas) on this matter don't apply anymore to the
Lutheran position as expressed in the JD. Two observations should be made here.
First, an anathema is, strictly speaking, a penalty whereby the Church
totally separates a Catholic believer from the Church. Because contemporary
Lutherans were not baptized in the Catholic Church, nor subsequently have been
received into the Catholic Church, mere ecclesiastical laws don't apply to them
(canon 11 of current Code; canon 12 of 1917 Code).>>>>
First, anathemas attached to dogmatic canons
on Faith are not merely ecclesiastical laws. They are expressions of the
divine law condemning those who reject the true Faith. They cannot be set
aside because they express an unchanging and dogmatic obligation to accept
every article of the Catholic Faith under pain of heresy and damnation.
Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
(# 9), June 29, 1896:
“…
can it be lawful for anyone to reject any
one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole
of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that
nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith,
as the Church teaches, is that supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He
has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the
natural light of human reason [author: that is, not because it seems correct to
us], but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither
deceive nor be deceived… But he who dissents even in one point from
divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby
refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of
faith.”
Please notice this important
teaching. The Church could never overturn anathemas attached to dogmatic
canons because it can never endorse the rejection of Faith and God which occurs
with “anyone” (see above) – that includes all Lutherans – who rejects “any”
teaching of the Catholic Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#
9):
"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has
done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding
the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from
the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine
different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists,
the Novatians, the Quartodecimans,
the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic
doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know
that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In
like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who
followed them in subsequent ages."
Pope Pius IX’s teaching clearly proves this as well.
Syllabus of
Errors, #70: “The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of
anathema on those who have the boldness to deny to the Church the
power of introducing diriment impediments, are either not dogmatic, or are
to be understood in accordance with this borrowed power.” – Condemned by
Pope Pius IX, Denz. 1770
This condemned proposition deals with
the anathemas of Trent regarding Holy Matrimony. It shows that the canons
of Trent which impose anathema on those who have the boldness to deny its
teaching on Justification are likewise dogmatic and cannot be
overturned.
"...the
holy ecumenical and general synod of Trent lawfully assembled in the Holy
Spirit... cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and apostolic legates a latere, presiding therein in the name of our Most Holy
Father and Lord in Christ, Paul, the third Pope by the providence of God, for
the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the tranquility of the Church and the
salvation of souls, purpose to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true
and salutary doctrine of justification, which the "son of justice"
(Mal. 4:2), Christ Jesus, "the author and finisher of our faith"
(Heb. 12:2) taught, the apostles transmitted and the Catholic Church, under the
instigation of the Holy Spirit, has always retained, strictly forbidding
that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than
is defined and declared by this present decree." (Council of
Trent, Session 6, On Justification)
The Joint
Declaration teaches contrary to the Council of Trent on Justification by saying
that Lutherans – and the teachings of Lutherans expressed in the JD –
are not anathematized any longer. Nothing could be more heretical.
Second, even without considering the facts
above, your argument that the anathemas of Trent on Justification can be
overturned – and cease to apply to Lutherans – because contemporary
Lutherans were never part of the Church, and hence not subject to Her
ecclesiastical laws, is also untenable. This is because the Lutheran
heretics involved in this agreement were not stipulated to be only Lutherans
who were never part of the Catholic Church. The agreement clearly
includes all types of Lutherans who are part of the body involved in the
agreement, including former Catholics and those baptized as infants who left
the Church and may have become Lutherans. Thus, even from that
standpoint, the argument doesn’t hold up.
You
write:>>>>However, Lutherans and all other
people are morally obligated to seek and embrace the full truth. Anathemas
would still apply to a Catholic who accepted the JD without the doctrinal
clarifications of the Annex. The Annex guides Catholic believers to a
proper Catholic understanding of those issues in the JD on which Catholics and
Lutherans have not achieved full, unequivocal agreement.>>>>
Mr. Suprenant, here you state that the Annex guides
Catholics. The Annex clearly teaches Justification by faith alone.
You are therefore endorsing the solemnly condemned heresy of Justification by
faith alone. You are endorsing the pillar of Protestantism and the
rejection of the Council of Trent.
Annex to the
Official Common Statement, made by “Catholic” side and Lutheran side: "Justification
takes place by grace alone, by faith alone, the person is justified
apart from works" (Annex, # 2, C).
You
write: >>>Second, regarding the Lutheran teaching on justification
as expressed in the JD, the Church does not condemn the teaching because
the Lutheran World Federation accepted the co-publication of the clarifying
Annex with the JD and the OCS. Yet, because of their explicit openness to
the Catholic position and because they did not formally and categorically deny
the Catholic teaching on justification (e.g., by rejecting the co-publication
of the Annex), the Church does not formally condemn this Lutheran group's
teaching on the matter.>>>>
Mr. Suprenant, what you endorse here is blatant heresy against
the Council of Trent. You state that the Church does not condemn the
teaching expressed by the Lutherans in the JD. Mr. Suprenant,
the teaching expressed by the Lutherans in the JD was solemnly condemned by
Trent. Before I show that, I must note again that you are appealing again
to the Annex which teaches the solemnly condemned heresy of Justification by
faith alone. You are thus endorsing Justification by faith alone again.
The Lutheran
teaching referred to in the JD – which the JD declares is not condemned by
Trent – includes Justification by faith alone and other blatant Lutheran heresies
which were, in fact, solemnly condemned by Trent. Please see the
following:
Joint
Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification:
"41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century [i.e., the
Council of Trent], in so far as they are related to the doctrine of
justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran
churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations
from the Council of Trent."
Joint
Declaration With the Lutherans on Justification:
"26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith
alone (sola fide)." --- HERESY CONDEMNED
BY TRENT!
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10, ex cathedra :
"'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas.
2:24)."
JD With
Lutherans: "21. According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are
incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they
actively oppose God and his saving action." –HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT!
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 6, Can. 4:
"If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does
not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes
and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent,
if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is
merely in a passive state: let him be anathema."
JD With
Lutherans: "23. …Lutherans... intend rather to express that justification
remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent upon the
life-renewing effects of grace in human beings." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY
TRENT!
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 6, Can. 1:
"If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his
own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the
teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him
be anathema."
JD With
Lutherans: "29. Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as
a being 'at the same time righteous and sinner'. Believers are totally
righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and
grants the righteousness of Christ which they appropriate in faith. In Christ,
they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however,
they recognize that they remain totally sinners." – HERESY CONDEMNED
BY TRENT!
This heresy is also called “simul justus et peccator” (at the same time just and sinner) and was
one of Martin Luther’s favorites. It was vigorously condemned by Trent in
the following two passages.
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 5:
"If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is
conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts
that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken
away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let
him be anathema."
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 5:
"For in those who are born again [Justified], God hates nothing,
because 'there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried
together with Christ by baptism unto death' (Rom. 6:4), who do not 'walk
according to the flesh' (Rom. 8:1), but putting off 'the old man' and putting
on the 'new, who is created according to God' (Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9), are
made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved sons of God,
'heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ' (Rom. 8:17), so that there is
nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."
JD With
Lutherans: "29... Lutherans say that justified persons are also sinners
and that their opposition to God is truly sin, they do not deny that,
despite this sin, they are not separated from God and that this is a
'ruled' sin." – HERESY CONDEMNED BY TRENT
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 15:
"... the doctrine of divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not
only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are fornicators, adulterers,
effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous,
drunkards, railers, extortioners
(1 Cor. 6:9), and all others who commit deadly
sins, from which with the assistance of divine grace they can refrain
and for which they are separated from the grace of God."
All of these
blatant Lutheran heresies were solemnly condemned by the Catholic Church.
But, according to the JD, they are no longer condemned by Trent. That is
formal heresy and an utter rejection of the Council of Trent.
>>>>I've
tried to be as responsive as I could be to the various questions and
accusations raised by you and Mr. [x]. I conclude with a simple, but earnest
and sincere, plea that you reexamine your opposition to the Pope. Surely we can
discuss various points of doctrine, but in the end, if we obstinately close our
ears to the Vicar of Christ on earth, we're headed toward ruin.>>>
Mr. Suprenant,
if you are honest, you will see that John Paul II’s
teaching is blatantly heretical in many areas. You will also admit that
he is not remotely Catholic for endorsing false religions. In my first
letter I deliberately brought forward only three of John Paul II’s heresies, so that it would not be too long. I
could have brought up many others, such as the fact that John Paul II repeatedly
teaches that all men are saved and in the state of grace, which is apostasy.
Antipope
John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978:
“Jesus
is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man;
and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is
redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by
means of Grace.”
I also did not
bring up the fact that John Paul II teaches that non-Christian (false)
religions are a product of the Holy Spirit, which is utter blasphemy and
apostasy.
Antipope
John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis
(# 6):
“Does
it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the
non-Christian religions – a belief that is also an effect of the
Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical
Body…”
Here Antipope
John Paul II says that the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian
religions proceeds from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Since we
know from Sacred Scripture and Catholic teaching that Satan is the author of
all non-Christian religions, what is being stated here by Antipope John Paul II
is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is actually the spirit of lies – Satan. This is an unbelievable blasphemy against God and
total apostasy.
Antipope
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 29), Dec. 7, 1990:
“The Church’s relationship with other religions is dictated by a twofold
respect: ‘Respect for man in his quest for answers to the deepest questions
of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man.’”
Here Antipope
John Paul II says that respect for non-Christian religions is dictated by
respect for the action of the Spirit in man. This clearly means that the
Spirit is responsible for these non-Christian religions, which again means that
the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the spirit of lies - Satan.
Antipope
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 56):
“Other
religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to
discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and of
the working of the Spirit.”
This means
that non-Christian religions are a work of the Spirit – the Holy Spirit – which
again equates the Spirit of Truth with the spirit of lies: Satan.
Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
(# 2), Jan. 6, 1928:
“For
which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by
these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which
all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of
every kind, and Christians… Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by
Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all
religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are
those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the
idea of true religion they reject it...”
Pius XI teaches that those who hold
that all religions are more or less good are apostates. John Paul II
holds that all religions are more or less good. This fact is proven by
the fact that he personally invited and arranged for an array of false
religions to come Assisi I and Assisi II (and many other events) to worship
false gods. John Paul II has also kissed the Koran and asked St. John the
Baptist to protect the false and wicked religion of Islam.
Antipope
John Paul II, March 21, 2000:
“May
Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)
This means
that John Paul II believes that Islam is a good religion. Do you admit
that this is apostasy? If not, Mr. Suprenant,
then I must say, in charity and with no personal malice, that you are an
apostate. His statement is more heretical than if he were to say, “May
St. John the Baptist protect abortion.”
John Paul II
has also taught that false religions are “great” hundreds of times,
including all the false religions he invited to come to Assisi. Do you
admit that this is apostasy?
Antipope
John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 14, 1986:
“…
I invited… the other great religions of the world to ‘a special meeting
of prayer for peace in the city of Assisi…’”(L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 22, 1986, p. 2.)
Antipope
John Paul II, Address, Nov. 29, 2002: “… the great world religions, starting
with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism…”(L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 11, 2002, p. 6.)
There are
other things that I could bring forward, such as the teaching of John Paul II
and Vatican II that it is lawful for non-Catholics to come to Holy Communion –
an idea condemned by the Catholic Church numerous times.
You write:
>>>>Second, it's clear that your rejection of Pope John Paul II is
prior to the specific issues raised in your email. I'm happy to provide some
response to your questions, but my preference would be to go to the source. I
assume that you believe at some specific, clearly definable moment in time Pope
John Paul II (or, more likely, one of his predecessors) went into schism and
became an anti-pope. When do you believe this occurred?>>>
We believe that John XXIII was an
Antipope from the time of his dubious election in 1958. We discuss his
invalid election in the article below:
Besides not being elected, according to
the evidence, John XXIII was also proven to be a non-Catholic heretic who
denied the necessity of the Catholic Church. Such a man cannot be a
validly elected Pope.
St.
Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest
heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as
he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore,
he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the
teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics
immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice,
II, 30)
St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other
sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body
cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it
was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy,
therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.
He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the
Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de
Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
St. Alphonsus, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “If ever a
Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from
the Pontificate.” (Oeuvres Complčtes. 9:232)
St. Francis De
Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Now when the Pope is explicitly a
heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…” (The
Catholic Controversy, TAN Books, pp. 305-306)
St.
Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church:
“This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be
Pope, as Cajetan himself admits. The reason for
this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is
not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not
a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius,
St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot
be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II,
30)
Paul VI was a complete apostate who was
not remotely Catholic, as we will show in an upcoming article. And John
Paul I was also a heretic for embracing all of the heretical Vatican II
documents. So, it is demonstrable that all four of the “Vatican II Popes”
were, in fact, non-Catholic Antipopes. That is why they have imposed a
new religion on the world, a new “Mass,” new sacramental rites, etc. But
I don’t want to deviate from the issue of John Paul II’s
apostasy which is the most important issue in this regard. So please
address the facts regarding John Paul II – and hopefully – recognize the
clear heresies in his teaching.
You write:>>>It seems to me that the burden of proof is
on you to establish this fact. If it weren't, then every Pope since St. Peter
would have the ongoing burden of justifying his legitimacy against any and all
criticisms, in essence having to constantly prove a negative.>>>
You are
correct. The burden of proof is on us to prove that John Paul II is an
Antipope, and not a real Pope, and we have done so at length by proving without
a doubt that he is not remotely Catholic – and therefore cannot be the Pope.
Further, Mr. Suprenant, the fact that the
post-Vatican II religion has implemented and preached a new gospel, with
totally new sacramental rites, and a totally new, Protestant “Mass,” etc.
should alert Catholics to the fact that this strange break with Tradition may
be coming from men who are imposters, just like the 40 plus Antipopes in
history. (Consider, for instance, Antipope Anacletus
II who reigned 8 years and Rome with the support of almost the entire College
of Cardinals.) The new gospel and the new, Protestantized
Mass of the post-Vatican II religion – besides all of the other heresies which
constitute a total break with Tradition – should alert Catholics that the
post-Vatican II religion is the fulfillment of the prophecies of Our Lady and
Sacred Scripture relating to the Great Apostasy and the takeover of the city of
Rome by a counterfeit “Church” of apostasy which is not the Catholic Church.
Antipope
John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis
(# 10), March 4, 1979: “IN REALITY, THE NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN’S
WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS. IT IS
ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”
Here John Paul
II preaches a new Gospel. This new gospel is that Christianity is the
amazement at man.
Galatians
1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be
anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received,
let him be anathema.”
I pray that
you will see the truth of the facts here, and we hope and pray for your
conversion.
Sincerely,
Bro. Peter
Dimond, O.S.B.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
Item #1
(7-30-04)
By Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
Recently,
I read an article by a “traditional Catholic” named Gary Morella, called John
Kerry is not a Catholic – period.
Intrigued by the title, and wanting to share with the man what his
conclusion about Kerry logically forces him to conclude about John Paul II and
his Bishops, I wrote to him as follows:
“Dear Gary:
“In your article you state unambiguously that
John Kerry is not a Catholic [John Kerry is not a Catholic – period], which is
quite true and with which we fully agree. But what gives you the authority
to make such a statement? You would obviously say his open denial
of Catholic teaching requires a Catholic to consider him a non-Catholic.
Okay, therefore you must agree that John Paul II and his Bishops who reject the
Council of Trent (Joint Declaration with
Lutherans on Justification) reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation
and the Council of Florence (by teaching that the Old Covenant is still valid),
and reject Vatican I (by teaching that we should not convert Eastern Schismatics), to just name a few, must also be considered
non-Catholics who are outside the Church.
“Would you agree with this? One must
admit that John Paul II and his Bishops are not Catholics who are outside the
Church, and if one refuses to admit this he must also consider John Kerry a
Catholic.
Sincerely,
Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.”
Mr.
Morella responded as follows. I will
stop the quotation from him and interject my comments where appropriate:
“God is the final judge on the
Pope. He's more qualified than you or me. In the case of Kerry, we're talking about a man who blatantly promotes
what the Church traditionally, via de
Fide teachings rooted in Sacred Scripture and the Church's great
tradition, as held by the early fathers and the current Pope, considers intrinsic moral evils.”
When were talking about John Paul II and his Bishops, we’re also
talking men who blatantly promote what the Church traditionally condemned.
“We're talking infallible pronouncements here on morals, which Kerry is
in clear violation of, and proud of it. I don't see the Pope
or Cardinal Ratzinger as being in agreement
with Kerry, but rather reinforcing traditional Church teaching on these
matters. Moreover, their writings are consistently antithetical to
Kerry on these moral issues for which there is no debate.”
Notice two more illogical diversions. First, he says we’re talking about infallible
pronouncements on morals which Kerry is in clear violation of. Okay, so what do you call what John Paul II
and his Bishops deny? With John Paul II
and his Bishops, we’re talking about infallible pronouncements on Faith from
the Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, and Vatican I – the most
authoritative dogmatic statements in Church history.
Second, notice how Mr. Morella diverts again by arguing that John
Paul II doesn’t agree with Kerry on abortion.
Did we say that he did? We said
that John Paul II denies many other things, which are dogmas just as much as the unlawfulness of abortion. Abortion isn’t the only issue over which one
can cease to be Catholic, contrary to popular belief. So, again, his statement is diversionary, and
has nothing to do with the issue. But in seeing this, dear reader, one should
clearly see how those who try to escape the conclusion that John Paul II is not
the Pope are not being honest; they are being deliberately inconsistent. This should be clear to those who see this
kind of dishonest diversion.
“I have yet to see where the current Pope has
made it de Fide
in regard to any of the questions that you bring up, which are,
admittedly, of real concern. For example, where is it de Fide that the Old
Covenant is still valid? Where is it de
Fide that the teachings of Trent, Florence, and Vatican I have been
invalidated? The fact that some clergy
hold to such an error does not make it official Church teaching, thank
God. Similarly, where is it de
Fide, that
the Church is out of the conversion business? Has Matthew's Gospel been
rewritten?”
Here we see the most common escape attempt of the defenders of Antipope John Paul II. We’ve seen this tactic employed time and time again. When you pin them down that those who reject defined dogma cannot be considered Catholics (as they admit with John Kerry), they quickly switch the topic and begin arguing about infallibility and whether the heretic has imposed his heresy infallibly as a de fide teaching. Remember this tactic, because it is used all the time. When they are pinned down on the heresy issue, they then conflate [fuse together] the heresy issue and the infallibility issue. No longer does one have to be a heretic, but he must be a heretic “infallibly”! But has John Kerry ever infallibly imposed his heretical support for abortion as a de fide teaching upon you, Mr. Morella? No, of course not. So, then, you admit that this fact has nothing to do with the issue. So, then, why do you mock God, and argue insincerely, by implying that John Paul II and his Bishops must impose the heresy as a de fide teaching for them to be considered heretics, when you know that this is not required to consider one a heretic (as in the case with the apostate Kerry)? Again, we see the inexcusable inconsistency (i.e., dishonesty) employed by the defenders of Antipope John Paul II; for they know that Papal Infallibility has nothing to do with the specific issue we are discussing. (It should be note