Heresies
of the Week Relating to “Traditional” Issues and Persons
By Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
Week of 2/3/06:
The St. Benedict
Center’s Newsletter condemns sedevacantism as
schismatic and says “No Pope? No Hope!” – oops,
they just condemned themselves out of their own mouth
Doug Bersaw, St. Benedict
Center (NH) Newsletter, Jan. 2006, “No
Pope? No Hope!”: “We are all too well aware of those, known as sedevacantists, who have effectively reduced the Mystical Body
to a loose confederation of warring tribes… Because it is a divided house, sedevacantism cannot be called ‘a schism,’ but it is clearly schismatic… Sedevacantism implicitly denies the virtue of faith by
contradicting Vatican I… Thank God, we
have hope. Our Lord is still in
charge and will protect His own, namely, those in the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found
– and which has a visible head in the
Roman Pontiff!”
It’s
often the case that God allows heretics who attack His truth to condemn
themselves out of their own mouths. We find a prime example of this here with
Doug Bersaw, writing for the St. Benedict Center in
NH. (Since newsletters such as this
are fraught with such contradiction, such blindness, such hypocrisy, they, in
particular, spark a Catholic’s righteous indignation.) Mr. Bersaw entitles
his brief attack on sedevacantism “No Pope? No
Hope!” Let me repeat that: his article,
which defends that Benedict XVI is the Pope, and asserts that sedevacantism is schismatic and a denial of Vatican I, is
called “No Pope? No Hope!” This is astounding, because it is Benedict
XVI who explicitly says that there is no “hope” in converting schismatics and Protestants to an acceptance of the Papacy
and Vatican I!
Benedict XVI, Principles
of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198:
“Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to
Christian ecumenism. The maximum demands
on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately
clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East
recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition
of 1870 [Vatican I] and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy
such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On
the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the
1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a
primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque
from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church
would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally
invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum
demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church
accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant
ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the
Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure
of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to
Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community
structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously
rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of
fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear
to be the real solution to the problem.
This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation
that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then
harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from this,
but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should
convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not
bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it.
As a result, none of the maximum
solutions offers any real hope of unity.”
Did
you get that, you blind fools of the St. Benedict Center? That means that Benedict XVI holds that there
is no hope in converting schismatics and
Protestants to an acceptance of the Papacy and Vatican I! In other words, he holds that there is no hope in accepting a true Pope! And that is why he is not a Pope, because he
holds that there is no hope in accepting a true Pope.
Since
this crowd at the St. Benedict Center is very obstinate (they have rejected and
attacked this truth for years, and fact after fact that has been presented to
them), one can say – and must say – that they are blind fools, enemies of God,
and bad willed, non-Catholics heretics on the road to damnation – who reject
Vatican I by obstinately asserting that one should hold communion with
non-Catholics who totally reject the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I, such as
Benedict XVI.
At their Judgment, God may very well say: “You said that sedevacantism
was schismatic because you claimed that it rejected Vatican I. But you knew that Benedict XVI said that
people are free to reject Vatican I, and you didn’t call him a schismatic. Begone, you cursed
liar, into the everlasting fire.”
In summary, the people at
the St. Benedict Center call sedevacantism “schismatic”and a denial of Vatican I, when they are
defending the number one, top-ranked schismatic and denier of Vatican I in
the world: Antipope Benedict XVI.
So,
in response to “No Pope? No Hope!” We
say: Wrong again! It’s your schismatic Antipope who says that
there is no hope in accepting a true Pope, and that is precisely why he is not
the Pope!
What
is written here applies not only to the heretical and schismatic St. Benedict
Center, but to all of those people out there who think that they are defending
the Papacy while defending Benedict XVI.
They are actually enemies of the Papacy and enemies of Vatican I. They are too blind to see that the one they
are defending totally rejects Vatican I.
APPENDIX – OTHER DENIALS OF
VATICAN I BY BENEDICT XVI
Benedict XVI, Principles
of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Nor
is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form
and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling
before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch
Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely
this….”
Benedict XVI is referring to the Papal Primacy
here, and he says that all Christians are not bound to believe in the
Papal Primacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870!
This means that Benedict XVI claims to be a Catholic and the Pope while
he holds that heretics and schismatics are not bound
to believe in the Papacy! This is one of
the greatest frauds in human history.
Benedict XVI even admits that Paul VI’s
ecumenical gestures with the schismatics were meant
to show precisely that the schismatics don’t have to
accept the Papal Primacy. This is a
blatant denial of Vatican Council I.
Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day,
August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all
Christians?... this unity does not
mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and
to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely
not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)
Just like the notorious
heretic “Cardinal” Kasper, Benedict XVI blatantly rejects the “ecumenism of the
return,” that is, that non-Catholics return to the Catholic Church, accept the
Papacy and reject their heretical sects.
He rejects the teaching of Pope Pius XI word for word.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of
Christ of those who are separated from it…”
Benedict XVI, Address,
Nov. 12, 2005: “In this regard, I ask
you, venerable Brothers, to convey my cordial greeting to Patriarch Maxim,
First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria. Please
express to him my best wishes for his health and for the happy resumption of
his ministry.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 23, 2005, p. 9.)
Benedict XVI encourages the non-Catholic,
schismatic Patriarch to resume his non-Catholic and schismatic ministry,
which rejects Vatican I and the Papacy!
Week of 10/28/05:
The Society of St. Pius X’s book Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X says the
Vatican II “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly
Most Asked Questions about the Society of
St. Pius X, Question 7: But
shouldn’t we be following John Paul II?, pp. 38-40: “The Pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals,
and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church,
canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf.
Principle 4), and then only when
imposing for all time a definitive teaching.
“Now
‘infallible’ means immutable and irreformable
(Principle 6), but, the hallmark of the conciliar
Popes, like the Modernists, is a spirit of evolution. To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely to impose? They do not and, in fact, ‘they cannot…’
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12, 1984.) Cf.
Question 15, n.3.” (Angelus Press, 1997)
The Society of St. Pius X is not merely stating here that John
Paul II did not fulfill the requirements to speak infallibly; the SSPX is
stating that John Paul II cannot speak infallibly.
For those who are for some reason not grasping the impact of
this statement by the SSPX, allow me to summarize it: the SSPX correctly points
out that an infallible teaching by a Pope on faith or morals is irreformable, as Vatican I declared (Denz.
1839). But according to the SSPX, the
Vatican II “Popes” are such Modernists that they believe in the evolution of
doctrine; they don’t believe that anything is irreformable. So, according to the SSPX, even though
they are valid Popes, the post-conciliar “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly! This is a rejection of Papal
Infallibility.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex
cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty
of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic
authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal
Church... operates with that
infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be
instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of
the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are
unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict
this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”
By definition, a Pope is the Bishop of Rome who possesses
supreme jurisdiction in the Church and who CAN teach infallibly, if he fulfills
the requisite conditions. If he is
incapable of speaking infallibly, he is perforce not a valid Pope. To state that one can be a valid Pope and be
incapable of speaking infallibly, as the SSPX does, is like stating that one
can be a valid Pope and not hold supreme jurisdiction in the Church. It is a contradiction in terms, a rejection
of one of the signal divine protections given to the occupants of the Papal Office,
as defined by Vatican I.
All of these schismatic positions (e.g,
the SSPX’s rejection of “Canonizations” proclaimed by
their “Pope”) and perversions of the Papal Office are a result of the SSPX’s failure to see the truth of the sedevacantist
position (i.e., that the Vatican II “Popes” are not Popes at all, but
Antipopes).
Week of 3/11/05
A Response from a reader:
The SSPX doesn’t teach that souls can be saved in false religions!
Wait a minute ! On second thought,
where on earth have you found that "SSPX teaches that souls can be saved
in false religions" ? In fact, SSPX has kept teaching the very contrary
ever since its inception. It teaches that souls can be EXCEPTIONNALLY saved
DESPITE their being in false religions, not BECAUSE their being in false
religions, which is entirely different ! Now, is this a new teaching ? Frankly,
I do not know any more!
Comment: It is taught clearly
in their best-selling books. These books
are sold in basically all of their bookstores.
Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Page 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. There may be
souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good
interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an
act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are
able to be saved.”
Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the
Heresies, Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in
these religions…”
Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Pages
73-74: “Does this mean that no
Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting
St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the
Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently
instructed as to what baptism is...”
Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Pages 217-218:
“This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation
that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside
the Church there is no salvation.’ When
we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants,
all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the
Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I
repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they
are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be
preached.”
Bishop
Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976): “We
are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we
affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think
that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one
cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His
Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church.
No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church,
but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church,
are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not
know it, even if they are unaware of it...”
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at
Rennes, France: “If men are saved in
Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by
the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of
Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion,
perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”
Could
anything be more clear? Now let me
mention something that really bothers me – in fact, it is an outrage, since it
is a mockery of God – and which lies at the very heart of this heresy:
dishonesty. You begin by saying that the
SSPX doesn’t believe that souls can be saved in false religions. We hear this all the time from people: “no, my priest doesn’t believe that.” And each time they are wrong, and in most
cases the people who are denying that their priests believe this BELIEVE THE
SAME THING THEMSELVES, so that they are actually lying. I just proved that the SSPX does believe that
souls can be saved in false religions.
But you began (like countless others) by arguing that they totally are
against such an idea, as if holding that the Catholic Church is the one true
Church (which the SSPX does) were the same thing as believing that all who die
as non-Catholics are lost. They are
not. But after you adamantly deny that
they hold such a thing, you then proceed to admit that they do! Here is what you write, and I will mark with
[1] and [2] where you totally deny what you just claimed.
“Wait a minute! On second thought, [1] where on earth have you found that
"SSPX teaches that souls can be saved in false religions" ? In fact,
SSPX has kept teaching the very contrary ever since its inception. [2] It teaches that souls can be
EXCEPTIONNALLY saved DESPITE their being in false religions, not
BECAUSE their being in false religions, which is entirely different ! Now, is
this a new teaching ? Frankly, I do not know any more!”
You first totally
reject that they hold such a thing; then you admit that both you and they
believe that very thing, that souls can be saved in false
religions. This is quite simply a lie,
and this is why people can’t see the truth.
Their dishonesty offends Jesus Christ (who is the Truth), and it denies
the Faith. This type of lying and
dishonesty is how they can delude themselves into believing that their view,
that those who die as non-Catholics are saved “by” the Catholic Church, is compatible with the dogma which
declares that no one who dies as a non-Catholic is saved. Any honest person knows that the two
are not compatible. I could say that all
men go to heaven (universal salvation), but all men go to heaven “by the
Catholic Church.” Does this change the
heresy? No, of course not. Thus, it doesn’t matter how Lefebvre tried to
explain away or justify his heresy; he was still teaching that souls can be
saved in non-Catholic religions, which is blatant heresy!
The dogma of the
Catholic Church does not merely affirm that “no one is saved except by
the Catholic Church”; it states that no one is saved outside
the Catholic Church and that no one is saved without the Catholic Faith. This means that no one can be saved inside
non-Catholic religions. The defenders of the SSPX need to get that
through their heads, or rather, THEIR DISHONEST HEARTS. The dogma of the
Catholic Church excludes the idea that anyone is saved in another
religion.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio
(# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of
these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are
not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even
heretics may attain eternal life.”
Since he was teaching that
people can be saved in another religion, Lefebvre’s emphasis that
everyone is saved by the Catholic Church has no relevance. The words of Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio
cited above could have been addressed specifically to Bishop Lefebvre and the
Society of St. Pius X.
Lefebvre did not
believe in the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation as it has been
defined, and his heresy is taught to the SSPX priests corrupting them from
their Seminary days. His heresy is also
held by the SSPV, CMRI and most independent “traditional” priests. It was the key to the Great Apostasy, and the
bridge to Vatican II.
So,
when you say “souls can be EXCEPTIONALLY saved DESPITE their being in false
religions” you are uttering the very heresy condemned by the Church – that
souls can be saved as non-Catholics. The
fact that you attempt to qualify it by saying that it is in spite of their
being non-Catholics changes nothing whatsoever; the heretical teaching is the
same, that persons can be saved without the Catholic Faith.
And because they are
dishonest, the SSPX supporters deny that they hold that souls can be saved in
false religions when it sounds bad, but then admit that that is actually what
they believe when pressed. They are lying,
mocking God and fooling no one but themselves.
They know in their hearts that the dogma which declares that all who die
without the Catholic Faith are lost is not compatible with the teaching of the
SSPX that souls can be saved in Buddhism, Protestantism, Islam, etc., yet they
argue that the two are the same anyway and delude themselves. These are the type of people whom God spits
out of His mouth, and does not let into the Kingdom because they are not of the
truth.
“Blessed are they that
wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the
tree of life, and may enter in by the gates of the city. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and
unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.” (Apoc.
22:14-15)
Week of 2/25/05:
Ratzinger’s possible
successor denies the Resurrection – but the false traditionalists still don’t
call him a heretic
Chris Ferrara, The Remnant,
Feb. 15, 2005, p. 6: “Another example of this alarming situation… is the
little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples,
was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.
Forte… is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith. How this
happened is anybody’s guess. The rumor has caused a great deal of
consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist.
“…[Alessandro] Zangrando, a respected journalist… reveals Forte as
nothing less than ‘the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point
of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The
empty tomb, he [Forte] argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian
ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial.
It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early
disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb,
along with the other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a
‘proof’ made up by the community.” (Bolding
and underlining are my own)
Comment: So the possible replacement of “Cardinal” Ratzinger denies the Resurrection. I would say that is heresy, wouldn’t
you? But notice what the heretic Chris
Ferrara says and – more importantly in this case – what he doesn’t say about Forte!
Ferrara calls Forte a “flaming neo-modernist”; but not once does he say
that this apostate is even a heretic, even though Forte denies the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ! This could be the
outrage of the week, in addition to the Heresy of the Week.
Ferrara
notes that Ratzinger consecrated Forte a Bishop, and
that Forte may succeed Ratzinger as head of the
“Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”;
but not once does Ferrara say that this Antichrist Forte is not a
Catholic, not part of the Church, doesn’t have the Faith, and therefore cannot
hold authority in the Church.
Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 6: “All we can do is continue our loyal
opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope…”
Yes,
Mr. Ferrara, you will continue to be loyal to apostates who deny the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ because you are a heretic.
Ferrara’s
statement above clearly implies that he would accept Forte as part of his
“Church,” just as he accepts Ratzinger and John Paul
II. But if one can accept John Paul II
as a Catholic after seeing his bold apostasy, as the false traditionalists do, then one must accept any and all the
baptized as Catholics – including those who deny the Resurrection. The false traditionalists are just taking
their heretical position, that not even John Paul II is a heretic, to its
logical and evil conclusion. One can see
how Antichrist such a position is: holding communion with those who deny the
Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is no different from holding communion
with those who venerate the Synagogue; kiss the Koran; consider all religions
great; and ask St. John the Baptist to protect Islam.
Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 6: “There
is no doubt that the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring
about her restoration.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832:
“Therefore,
it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration
and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety
and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or
other misfortune.”
Week of 2/04/05
More Evil from the False Traditionalists: Fr. Moderator affirms
that JP2 may be Saintly; and Chris Ferrara on Canonizations
Some
of you are familiar with “Fr. Moderator,” who is a well-known
“traditionalist.” He denounces the
Vatican II sect as a false church but defends that the hierarchy of this sect
is still the Catholic hierarchy. He also
holds that the apostate John Paul II is the Pope, even though he admits that
his “Church” (the Vatican II/Conciliar Church) is a
non-Catholic sect. Fr. Moderator was
recently asked about miracles relating to John XXIII; his response is
astoundingly evil.
Dear
Fr. Moderator:
Reading
the sad history of Modernism leading up to Vatican II and seeing that Pope John
XXIII had, directly and/or indirectly, assisted the advance of Modernism, do
you know if there has been a real miracle from God associated with John XXIII
that will be used for his canonization? If so, how can a traditional Catholic
reconcile a miracle from God with the history of John XXIII? Would a miracle
for the instigator of Vatican II mean that God meant to have Vatican II
(although maybe not the way it was implemented)?
Fr.
Moderator Replies.
Such
a miracle, if it is ever properly proven (and for that we must wait until after
the Church is fully restored, and the investigative process for beatifications
and canonizations are restored to that which ensures their validity) can be very
easily reconciled, because a miracle could in no way bear upon Vatican II.
You
are looking in the wrong place for your Catholic Faith. Catholics are not
pagans who look for God's truth from the incantations of a tribal witch-doctor
or the entrails of a sacrificial animal or Tarot cards or even purported
miracles. Miracles are not dogma. The Catholic Faith is taught to us from Our
Lord Jesus Christ, through His Public Revelation, that is, Sacred
Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition.
Whether
John XXIII was a Saint or not, no miracle would prove anything about the wisdom
or folly of his ecclesiastical policies. It would bear upon his personal
sanctity, which could well be substantially internal and known primarily to
God. Take the case of the present pope,
for example. We know that a good deal of what he has done and failed to do
toys dangerously with contravening the Catholic teaching of his 260
predecessors and 20 dogmatic councils. Moreover, he has surrounded himself with
his own appointed rogues in purple and scarlet and allowed them to take
possession of the Church -- rogues who have forsworn their sacred oaths to God
by practicing and advocating the sacrilege of a New Religion, have preyed upon
the innocent, have stolen church money and property, and have caused great
scandal to the Church. JPII appointed all these ecclesiocrats
and refuses to raise his voice or hand in correction. That is evil -- just as
evil, if not worse, than those predecessors of his that allowed similar
affronts to Almighty God to occur in previous centuries.
Yet JPII may be
saintly interiorly
-- not because of what he has done with the Church, which is objectively evil,
but perhaps because of interior virtues, such as long-suffering endured on
account of his grave and debilitating illness. If he is ever found to be a
Saint (and that cannot occur with certainly until the Church is fully restored
by faithful bishops and popes, not promoters of the New Order), it will be
primarily because of interior virtues and in no way confirm the evils of his
actions and inactions in governing the Church.
Take
an example. St. Augustine was a Saint, one of the greatest Saints of the
Church. Yet he was once a heretic of the Manichean sect, a persistent
fornicator with a woman out of wedlock, and the father of a bastard child. Many
miracles have been attributed to St. Augustine, but it would be blasphemous to
hold that any such miracles were God's "blessing" on his sin. Quod
Deus avertat!
Comment:
This is Satanic.
“Woe to you that call evil good,
and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…” (Isaias 5:20)
To
say that John Paul II may be saintly (after being aware of what he believes and
has done) is like saying that Anton LaVey (the author
of the Satanic Bible) may have been saintly.
Only a person with absolutely no Faith, who is totally blinded
by the devil and in mortal sin, would ever assert that John Paul II may be
saintly after being aware of what he has done.
This is such an abomination that it cries to heaven. And Fr. Moderator is fully aware of what John
Paul II has done.
Fr.
Moderator is a man who has clearly been used by Satan to misdirect
traditional-minded Catholics. I say
again: anyone who believes that John Paul II may be saintly, if they are aware
of his apostate actions, is a complete heretic and an apostate. Anyone who says that JP2 can pray with all
religions and allow them to worship false gods in “Catholic” churches (Assisi I
and II); declare that we should not convert heretics and schismatics;
agree with the Lutherans on Justification; endorse Judaism; kiss the Koran; ask
for the protection of the false religion of Islam; consistently teach that
false religions are of the Holy Ghost and “great”; give donations to heretical
sects; teach that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion; preside over
wicked, pagan inculturation ceremonies with women who
are sometimes topless; praise Luther and Calvin; and preside over the
non-Catholic sect which is the Conciliar Church, just
to name a few, and be saintly, is Satanic.
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi future prospicientibus (#9), Nov. 1,
1900: “It is, then, evident that those
whose intellect rejects the yoke of Christ are striving against God.”
In
other words, those who submit to God – and are saintly – do the things of God;
while those who reject Christ and deny His truth are wicked and are striving
against God. Those who are saintly do
not perform wicked acts; they do not reject the Catholic Faith and endorse Satanic
religions. Notice that Fr. Moderator,
like a serpent, tries to justify his abomination by preying upon people’s
ignorance. He brings up St. Augustine
who was a great sinner, yet worked miracles.
Does anyone not see how stupid he thinks people are? St. Augustine was a great sinner before
he converted to the Catholic Faith and changed his life! The miracles attributed to his intercession
were due to his saintly life after his conversion. Fr. Moderator is saying that John Paul II, while
committing incessant acts of idolatry, sacrilege and apostasy, may be
saintly! Fr. Moderator, stop deceiving
Catholics you non-Catholic apostate.
Fr.
Moderator also shows that he has no Faith – and is a complete and utter
schismatic – when he rejects the “Canonizations” of the man he deems to be
Pope. He teaches that the Catholic
Church has defected. Notice what he
says:
Yet
JPII may be saintly interiorly -- not because of what he has done with the
Church, which is objectively evil, but perhaps because of interior virtues,
such as long-suffering endured on account of his grave and debilitating
illness. If he is ever found to be a
Saint (and that cannot occur with certainly [sic] until the Church is fully
restored by faithful bishops and popes, not promoters of the New
Order), it will be primarily because of interior virtues and in no way confirm
the evils of his actions and inactions in governing the Church.
This
is formal heresy and schism. 1) He
teaches that the Church needs restoration.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832:
“Therefore,
it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and
regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and
growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other
misfortune.”
We’ve
conversed with many traditional Catholics who have said the same thing (the
Church needs “restoration”). Many of
these people were not necessarily heretics, even though they used this improper
and imprecise wording, because they did not really believe that the Catholic
Church has erred and they rejected the idea that a Pope could err when
canonizing a Saint. They were guilty of
imprecise wording. But, in Fr.
Moderator’s case, he holds that the Catholic Church has officially erred and
needs restoration, because he holds that the “Pope” of the Catholic Church can
now give us non-Saints.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection,
1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or
is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine,
and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the
Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible
influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”
2)
Thus, Fr. Moderator denies Papal Infallibility (which is exercised when a Pope
canonizes a Saint); and he denies the indefectibility of the Church and of the
Apostolic See.
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 22), Dec. 11, 1925:
“Not least among the blessings which have resulted from
the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the
Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4,
Chap. 4: “And since the sentiment of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed
over when He says: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church’
[Mt. 16:18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion
has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated.” (Denz. 1833)
3)
Fr. Moderator also judges the Apostolic See, by denouncing as false the
official actions of what he deems to be the Apostolic See (e.g., the
“Canonizations” of John Paul II). He is
again condemned.
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865:
“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy,
nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by
anyone.” (Denz. 330)
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus,
Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11:
“By
passing judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man
to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of the
venerable Councils…” (Denz. 352)
This
means that the solemn actions emanating from the Papal Office (the Apostolic
See), such as Canonizations of Saints, cannot be questioned or denied.
Chris Ferrara on
Canonizations
Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Jan. 31, 2005, p. 4: “In any case, if the requirement of miracles is
abandoned, at least we can take comfort in the probability that any resulting
‘canonizations’ of Novus Ordo heroes – and that is
what the whole innovation is all about – will be subject to error. For
the commonality of theologians has based its opinion that canonizations are
infallible (by no means an article of faith) on the traditional process for
declaring them, which has always had miracles at its core. Take
away the miracles and you have only human assessments of a candidate’s virtue,
which in turn depend upon historical facts whose verification cannot be cloaked
in the charism of infallibility… What I am saying is that we would have reason to doubt any canonization
declared without the benefit of miracles, unless the Pope removes all doubt by
an infallible definition excluding their necessity… If the Vatican
apparatus wishes to dispense with God’s evidence for the first time in Church
history, then the Pope should declare infallibly that Ratzinger’s
decision is correct… Otherwise, I, for
one, reserve the right to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles. In that doubt may lie our refuge in the dark
days to come.”
Chris
Ferrara is addressing the recent talk that the Vatican might dispense with the
miracle requirement in the Canonization process. He says that if this occurs the
“Canonizations” of the Conciliar Church, which he
considers to be the Catholic Church, will be subject to error. He is saying that a Canonization’s
infallibility is based on the miracle requirement; and that without the miracle
requirement there is no infallibility to the Canonization. This is faithless and heretical
nonsense.
1) Ferrara: “Take away the miracles and you have only
human assessments of a candidate’s virtue, which in turn depend upon
historical facts whose verification cannot be cloaked in the charism of infallibility…”
The
certainty that Canonizations are infallible is based on the declaration
of the Pope who, in declaring that a Saint must be venerated, speaks infallibly
on behalf of the Church which cannot err. (Please notice the bolded portion
below)
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection,
1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is
heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and
others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff,
according to St. Thomas, is guided by
the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing
saints.”
Ferrara’s
statement above is a blasphemy against the Papacy. He says that if you take away the miracles
you have only a human assessment.
What an insult to the divine protection of Papal Infallibility! According to Ferrara, the solemn declaration
by a Pope that someone is a Saint is only a human assessment. This is clear heresy from a faithless
heretic who doesn’t really believe in Papal Infallibility. Sorry, Mr. Ferrara, but the solemn
declaration of a Pope is not merely a human assessment. A true Pope is the Vicar of Christ who, when
speaking from the Apostolic See (as he does in solemnly canonizing), has a
divine protection from Jesus Christ.
Those who don’t believe this are not Catholic. Again, here is the solemn formula that is
pronounced by John Paul II in “canonizing” (and was used before Vatican II).
“In honor of the
Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of
Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having
assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many
brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define “x” to be a Saint,
and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the Saints, and we establish that in the
whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
Since
this is solemn and infallible language dealing with a point of Faith, if a Pope
declares a Saint with this formula, even if no miracles were required,
it would certainly be infallible.
2) Ferrara writes: “What
I am saying is that we would have reason to doubt any canonization declared
without the benefit of miracles, unless
the Pope removes all doubt by an infallible definition excluding their
necessity…”
This
is heretical and a total contradiction.
It is heretical because, as stated above, it denies the infallibility of
the Papal definition in declaring a Saint. But notice also the incredible
contradiction. He says that a
Canonization without the benefit of miracles would be infallible if the Pope issued an infallible definition
excluding the necessity of miracles.
Let’s untwist this: A Canonization (even without miracles) is itself a solemn definition on Faith by
the Pope. According to Ferrara, we
must only believe in this solemn definition on Faith by the Pope (the
Canonization) if the Pope issued another solemn definition on Faith
telling us that the first one is true without miracles! But if the first solemn definition on Faith
by the Pope (the Canonization) could be false, then so can the second one
(declaring that the first one is true)!
Ferrara’s statement is contradictory and heretical nonsense. And that is the whole point: if a
Canonization by a Pope using the formula above can be false then any ex cathedra statement by any Pope could
be false. Those who deny this deny
Christ’s promise to St. Peter and his true successors. Those who deny this have no divine Faith
whatsoever in the indefectibility of the Church. Those who deny this deny the infallibility of
the Apostolic See (the office of the Papacy).
Such persons are non-Catholic schismatics, and
they need to be converted to an acceptance of the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
3)
Ferrara writes: “If the Vatican apparatus wishes to dispense with God’s
evidence for the first time in Church history, then the Pope should declare
infallibly that Ratzinger’s decision is correct… Otherwise, I, for one, reserve the right
to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles.
Ferrara
is teaching that he has the right to doubt the judgment of what he deems to be
the Apostolic See.
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus quidem, 865:
“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy,
nor by religious, not by the people will the judge be judged… ‘The first seat will not be judged by
anyone.” (Denz. 330)
As
stated above, a Catholic does not have the right to doubt any Canonization that
is solemnly declared by the Apostolic See, regardless of whether or not the
process included miracles. This is
because the Pope, when speaking solemnly and bindingly on Faith in virtue of
his apostolic authority (as he does in Canonizations), speaks on behalf of
Jesus Christ.
4) Ferrara writes: “For the commonality of theologians has based its opinion that canonizations are infallible (by no means an article
of faith) on the traditional process for declaring them, which has always
had miracles at its core.”
This
is false because, as we saw above, St. Alphonsus and
the other Doctors based their teaching that Canonizations cannot be denied
under pain of heresy on the declaration of the Pope, who is protected from
error. It is not based on the process
leading up to the Canonization. His
statement here is also heretical because he
says that it is “by no means” an article of Faith that Canonizations are
infallible. This means that St.
Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Thomas, St. Vincent Ferrer,
etc., etc., etc. are by no means certainly Saints. Ferrara may try to deny that this is what he
means, but then he would only be lying; for if it is by no means an article of
Faith that Canonizations are infallible then any Saint might not be a Saint –
period.
5) Ferrara writes: “Otherwise, I, for one,
reserve the right to doubt any canonization not supported by miracles. In
that doubt may lie our refuge in the dark days to come.”
Ferrara
states that if the Conciliar Church dispenses with
the miracle requirement, doubting “Canonizations” may be his and other false
traditionalists’ refuge. Yes, the devil
wants them to be prepared for the Conciliar Church to
“canonize” even darker figures such as Paul VI and Mother Teresa or perhaps
even Martin Luther. This non-Catholic
sect will continue to “Canonize” heretics, and the false traditionalists will
continue to explain it away to their own damnation. Their “refuge” of denying the infallibility
of Canonizations is no refuge at all. It
is a heresy which prevents them from seeing the truth that the Vatican II
“Church” is a defected non-Catholic sect and that Antipope John Paul II is a
non-Catholic Antipope.
It
seems clear from Ferrara’s words that he, and those of his ilk, will continue
to recognize the Vatican II sect as the Catholic Church no matter what it
does. They are already at the point of
admitting that they will be ready to deny the “Canonizations” of their
“Church,” yet they still cannot see that it is not the Catholic Church; and
they defend groups such as the SSPX which has already flatly rejected John Paul
II’s solemn “Canonizations.” These people are pathetically blind. You will see them correcting grammatical
errors and straining out all kinds of gnats, while they swallow the camel of
heresy that is the Conciliar Church, even when they
are at the point of rejecting its “Canonizations.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection,
1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or
is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine,
and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff,
according to St. Thomas, is guided by
the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing
saints.”
Week of 12/17/04
More heresy from “Fr.” Gruner and Tom Droleskey
Nicholas Gruner spews his vomit again
In
the recently published Autumn 2004 issue of The
Fatima Crusader, “Fr.” Nicholas Gruner states the
following (bolding, underlining and italicization are my own):
“Fr.” Nicholas Gruner,
The Fatima Crusader, Autumn, 2004, p.
14: “But we are told in Sacred Scripture that one third of those stars, at a
future time, will be swept down, by the great red dragon at the service of the
devil. And Pope John Paul II is telling us that time is now. He warns you to not follow the one third
of the Catholic clergy, Cardinals and bishops and priests, who will lead you to
hell. That is why they do not release the Third
Secret to you.”
This
is truly sickening. This is disgusting
spiritual vomit from a dark soul who has compromised his way into profound
spiritual blindness, whereby he doesn’t tell us that John Paul II is the most
destructive apostate in the world who is leading the whole apostasy, but rather
that John Paul II is warning us about the apostasy! Notice also the incredible intellectual
dishonesty of Gruner, whereby he says that “they” don’t release the Third Secret to
you! It is Antipope John Paul II who is
responsible for withholding the Third Secret, not the bishops and priests under
him. This is truly outrageous!
Tom Droleskey reveals the dark compromise at the heart of the
acceptance of Antipope John Paul II and the
In
a recent issue of The Remnant,
“traditionalist” Tom Droleskey made the following
revealing admission (bolding and underlining are my own):
Dr. Thomas Droleskey,
The Remnant, Nov. 30, 2004, p. 5:
“One of the worst things I have ever done is to have written an editorial for The Wanderer in 1993 criticizing an
article written by Edwin Faust in The
Remnant about the state of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II at the
fifteen year mark. I did not really disagree with Mr. Faust’s article. Truth be told, I agreed with it. I wrote my weak and indefensible rebuttal to
‘keep my place’ on the pages of The
Wanderer and to maintain my ‘access’ to the Holy See. Hey, I
had interviewed the Pope’s spokesman, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls,
just a few months before. Then Monsignor
Stanislaw Dziwisz tapped me on the shoulder to serve
as the lector for the Holy Father’s private Mass in his chapel on Wednesday,
May 27, 1993. I was hot stuff, folks, or
so I had convinced myself in vainglorious pride and stupidity. I was thus predisposed to violate my
conscience and to write an article I knew I should not have written.”
What
a dishonest man and what a horrible sin.
He agreed with the article criticizing John Paul II, but wrote against
it anyway and attempted to refute it simply because of human respect. This is disgusting. If Tom Droleskey
were not still a heretic who is still misleading people, we would praise him
for the acknowledgement of his past dishonesty and sin. But because he is still a heretic and because
he still attacks the truth, this quote must be pointed out to show the impure
motives at the heart of the compromise.
Don’t doubt for a second that if these writers (not just Tom Droleskey, but the whole lot of them) were really for the
truth and the salvation of souls, they would be calling John Paul II the total
apostate and formal heretic that he is, and pointing out the teaching that a
manifest heretic cannot be the Pope.
Week of 12/10/04
Some comments on the documentary “Heaven’s Key to Peace”
The Documentary “Heaven’s Key to Peace” featuring Nicholas Gruner
The
documentary “Heaven’s Key to Peace” featuring Nicholas Gruner
aired on television this week. Before I
get to its specifics I must mention that the advertisement for this program
mentioned that one can “honor Our Lady” by watching it. This reminds me of the fact that the
bookstore directed by Nicholas Gruner’s apostolate is
called “Our Lady’s Book Service.” This
is quite presumptuous. I can just
imagine the criticism that we would get if we called our bookstore “Our Lord’s
Book Service,” or that by spreading our video you “honor Our Lord.” But presumptuous and false assertions such as
those mentioned above about Gruner’s apostolate have
helped enable his apostolate to gain much support, because he has billed
himself as “the Fatima priest” and his apostolate as Our Lady’s
apostolate. Now back to the
documentary…
Unfortunately
but not surprisingly, despite some
good points, the documentary “Heaven’s Key to Peace” was quite disappointing
and heretical. The documentary
interviewed various “traditionalists” about Fatima and the Consecration of
Russia. The documentary also featured a Jewish Rabbi, that’s right, a Jewish Rabbi – without any mention or clarification
on the documentary that this Rabbi needs to convert to Christ to be saved! The Jewish Rabbi told us about the
Consecration of Russia, God’s justice, the post-conciliar
Church, relativism and how “impotent” (powerless) the Catholic Church
supposedly is, just to name a few. The
Rabbi was shown for quite a bit of time – in fact, it seemed like he was
featured as much as any of the others who were interviewed. To put
it simply: to feature a Jewish Rabbi on your program discoursing on
I
will now make a few comments on the documentary’s treatment of
Basically
the whole documentary was about world peace, and it contained almost nothing about the salvation of souls,
except for the short recap of the Our Lady’s appearances at Fatima and
Guadalupe. I also don’t recall almost
anything being mentioned about the necessity of praying the Rosary, except for
an advertisement about how to obtain one.
Rather, the documentary focused almost totally on the Consecration of
Russia and world peace. And this is the
point that I would like to make: the devil is attempting to make people believe
that the real threat is a physical one, not the Vatican II spiritual
apostasy. And Nicholas Gruner is one of the main false prophets in this regard,
who even mentioned in the documentary that you have your whole “mortgage on
your house” you could lose. Chris
Ferrara also appealed to non-Catholics to pull for the Consecration of
Russia, because by pulling for it they have nothing to lose and it may grant
them world peace; but he didn’t mention that the non-Catholics have their
eternal souls to lose if they don’t convert to Catholicism! They mentioned what is apparently really important in their eyes: to work
for the Consecration of Russia to get world peace. Can anyone fail to see the false salvation
message of the devil that is being promoted here, namely, that what matters is
that you work with Nicholas Gruner for peace in the
world, not that you abandon your Judaism or your non-Catholicism.
On
the documentary, almost nothing was
mentioned about the Vatican II apostasy; in fact, ironically, the strongest
statement was made by the Rabbi who noted that many people in the Church (no
mention of John Paul II, though) have embraced errors which were condemned by
Popes Pius IX and St. Pius X in their respective syllabi of errors!
Week of 11/19/04
“Traditional” Bishop Rifan of the Society of St. John Vianney
shows his apostasy by taking part in the New Mass
"Traditional" Bishop Rifan Takes Part in the Abominable New Mass
1 Machabees 1:50-51- “And the king sent letters... that
they… should… let their souls be defiled with all uncleanness, and abominations
to the end that they should forget the law, and should change all the
justifications of God.”
Comment: In
The Campos group remained independent of the Novus Ordo “Bishops,” even though it recognized them as the
legitimate hierarchy, because it criticized as unacceptable many aspects of the
New Mass and the Vatican II religion. In fact, years ago the
But, in 2002, the Society of St. John Vianney (SSJV) changed its views. Perhaps perceiving the fundamental contradiction,
and the schismatic attitude, in its position – and in the position of the SSPX
– namely, to operate completely independent of the hierarchy it recognizes as
the true Catholic hierarchy (when, in truth, it shouldn’t recognize them as the
true hierarchy at all), the SSJV came to apostate Rome and John Paul II to be
“reconciled.” Antipope John Paul II and
his “Cardinals” agreed to give the SSJV an “Apostolic Administration” whereby
they would be fully “reconciled” and “recognized” by John Paul II and the Novus
Ordo sect, as
long as the SSJV agreed to accept the validity of the New Mass and that Vatican
II is a true Council – and, of course, that John Paul II is Pope. The full “reconciliation” of this
“traditionalist” group with the Novus Ordo sect was
praised by many false traditionalists who believed that this group would get
the “best of both worlds” (according to them) – i.e., it would maintain its
“traditionalism” while also being recognized by Antipope John Paul II, their
“Pope.” The apostates Chris Ferrara and
Thomas Woods expressed their approval of the development with the SSJV in their
heretical book, The Great Façade.
Christopher Ferrara
and Thomas Woods, The Great Façade,
p. 403: “One encouraging development
occurred early in 2002: the erection of an apostolic administration for the
traditionalist Society of St. John Vianney (SSJV), an
order of priests in
Please notice how inextricably bound up are 1)
acceptance that John Paul II is the Pope and 2) the acceptance of Vatican II
and the New Mass. If you accept # 1,
then you must accept # 2, as this instance proves again. Vatican II is the official Council and teaching of the “Church” of John Paul
II; and the New Mass is an official
rite of the “Church” of John Paul II.
That is why John Paul II and his apostate “Bishops” will not recognize
those persons who don’t accept the legitimacy and validity of these two things
as “Catholics in full communion” with them. That is precisely why the SSJV had
to accept these things to get full “approval” from the Vatican II sect.
So, in 2002, the SSJV completely sold its soul and gave in to apostate