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 schismaticSedevacantism 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 sedevacantismschismatic”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 Vatican II sect

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 Fatima’s importance and moral issues is an abomination.  The fact that this Rabbi made some true statements and some good points makes no difference whatsoever.  He represents the rejection of Jesus Christ!  Putting the Rabbi on the program gives people the clear impression that the producers of this documentary believe that this Rabbi is not on the road to damnation.  Putting the Rabbi on the program to give us the truth about Fatima and moral relativism, etc. gives people the clear impression that a Jewish Rabbi stands for the truth!  People really have to ask themselves: what kind of person would put a Jewish Rabbi speaking in this context on his program?  The answer is only a very evil one.  I don’t think that even the apostates at EWTN would do something like this if they produced a documentary on Our Lady or one of her apparitions.  We truly hope that this Rabbi converts to the Catholic Faith, and there appears to be more hope for a Rabbi such as this to convert, since he has an interest in Catholic matters; but the fact that he was featured on this documentary teaching Catholics about Fatima and moral issues shows the evil depths to which the producers of this documentary have sunk. 

I will now make a few comments on the documentary’s treatment of Fatima, which had some good points and many misleading points.  In a future article we plan on explaining more at length why, in our opinion, people are definitely misunderstanding the fulfillment of Our Lady’s prophecy of July 13, 1917 about the Consecration of Russia, the “certain period of peace” and the annihilation of nations, etc.  This misunderstanding causes two deadly errors: 1) it causes people to believe that we cannot yet be in the last days, which is clearly false, since we are definitely in the last days; 2) it causes people to believe that John Paul II may be the Pope who can consecrate Russia because “someone” has to do it.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and no one is a bigger proponent of this lie than Nicholas Gruner, who is a complete heretic, as reflected in this documentary. 

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!  Vatican II was mentioned as a legitimate ecumenical council on the documentary.  John Paul II’s failure to consecrate Russia was also due to what “others have told him,” again dishonestly shifting the blame away from John Paul II.  Nothing was mentioned about John Paul II’s complicity in the Fatima deception or about his incredible apostasy and crimes against the Faith.  To put it simply: this documentary gives many misleading and heretical impressions, and it reflects the spiritual rot and evil present in those people who obstinately maintain united to the apostate John Paul II and the Vatican II sect.

 

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 Campos, Brazil there exists a prominent “traditional” group of priests that was started many years ago by the late Bishop Castro De Mayer.  The group goes by the name “The Society of St. John Vianney.”  Bishop Castro De Mayer, who started the group, had been a friend of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, and was present when Bishop Lefebvre consecrated the four Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X in 1988.  The Campos group of priests held a position that is similar to the SSPX: it was independent of the Novus Ordo dioceses, even though it was definitely not Sedevacantist and always recognized Antipope John Paul II as the Pope. 

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 Campos group published a pamphlet called “62 Reasons Why In Conscience, We Cannot Attend the New Mass.”  Having discouraged people from attending the New Mass, the Campos group’s position was not compatible with approval by the apostate Novus Ordo Bishops.  As long as they held to such a position, they would have to continue operating independently of John Paul II and the Novus Ordo Bishops.

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 Campos, Brazil.  The Pope granted to these priests the very canonical structure we here suggest, permitting them to work and to expand without (it would seem as of this writing) the consent of the local diocesan bishop… It is highly significant for our thesis that in order to be ‘reconciled’ with Rome and ‘end the schism,’ SSJV had merely to affirm what it never denied in the first place: that John Paul II is the Pope, that the Mass of Paul VI (when correctly celebrated according to the proper intention) is valid, that Vatican II is a Council of the Church, and that open questions are to be studied with humility and charity.…” (emphasis mine)

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 Rome.  While the SSJV did not yet celebrate the New Mass, some predicted that it would only be a short time before its priests did.  (But after already having recognized that the New Mass is a legitimate rite that may be attended, why would they be opposed to offering it themselves?)  The selling-of-their-souls out to the New Mass would not come in the future when they finally offered it; it already came when they accepted it as legitimate.

Thus, on September 8, 2004, the apostate Bishop Rifan of the SSJV carried his heretical position to its logical conclusion and he concelebrated an invalid New Mass, which adulterated the words of Christ (using “shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven” in the Consecration) – and contained numerous other abominations, including laywomen giving out the Novus Ordo cookie; a speech by a Marxist; and other pagan-like abominations so common at the Novus Ordo.

All of this is strikingly reminiscent of the story in the Machabees.  In the books of the Machabees, we are told the story of how the wicked King Antiochus took over the children of Israel, imposed upon them a new religion of idolatry, changed their traditions, and forced them to accept the new religion.  There are striking parallels to our own situation in this history, including in regard to compromising false traditionalists.

1 Machabees 1:41 ff. “Her sanctuary was desolate like a wilderness, her festival days were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honors were brought to nothing… And King Antiochus wrote to all his kingdom, that all the people should be one: and every one should leave his own law.  And all nations consented, according to the word of King Antiochus.  And many of Israel consented to his service [read: the New Mass], and they sacrificed to idols, and profaned the Sabbath.  And the king sent letters.. that they… should forbid holocausts and sacrifices [read:the Traditional Mass]… and 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… Then many of the people were gathered to them that had forsaken the law of the Lord: and they committed evils in the land: And they drove away the people of Israel into lurking holes, and into the secret places of fugitives [read: independent of the dioceses].  On the fifteenth day of the month, Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God [read: the New Mass], and they built altars throughout all the cities of Juda round about…”

Those who resisted the new religion were led by Judas Machabeus and his supporters; and they made no compromise with the wicked usurpers.  But some of the Machabees were led to their deaths by being deceived by the “peaceable” words spoken by the supporters of King Antiochus.  Please read the following and tell me if it is not a description of the SSJV and the SSPX and like-minded false traditionalists, who listen to the “peaceable words and deals” offered to them by the apostate “Bishops” in Rome, such as Ratzinger, Castrillon-Hoyos, etc. – and are led to their spiritual deaths as a result.   

1 Machabees 7:10-17 “And they arose, and came with a great army into the land of Juda: and they sent messengers, and spoke to Judas and his brethren with peaceable words, deceitfully.  But they [Judas and his brethren] gave no heed to their words: for they saw that they were come with a great army.  Then there assembled to Alcimus and Bacchides a company of the scribes, to require things that are just: And first the Assideans, that were among the children of Israel, and they sought peace of them.  For they said: One that is a priest of the seed of Aaron is come [read: a dignitary of the Vatican], he will not deceive us.  And he spoke to them peaceably: and he swore to them, saying: We will do you no harm, nor your friends [read: we will allow you to keep your traditional Mass, just accept us].  And they believed him.  And he took threescore of them, and slew them in one day…”

We see that Bishop Rifan of the SSJV is one such victim.  But here are the words of a recent interview of Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, regarding his continuing discussion with “reconciling” with Rome [read: King Antiochus].

The Angelus, August 2004, pp. 2-3: “Q. In this interview for Latin Mass Magazine, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos does more than just stretch out a hand to the faithful attached to Tradition, he affirms that the Holy Father holds his arms open.  Aren’t you touched by such a generous offer?  [Bishop Fellay’s Answer]: I am very much touched by this gesture and do not doubt the generosity behind it…”

Notice how similar Bishop Fellay’s attitude is to that of the compromising Machabees. Rome does more than just stretch out a hand to the faithful attached to Tradition…  Aren’t you touched by such a generous offer?” “I am,” says Bishop Fellay.  (If Bishop Fellay were Catholic, he would denounce the Novus Ordo Bishops and John Paul II as apostate usurpers who possess no authority to offer anyone anything.)

We see that the people who wanted to compromise with the representatives of Antiochus – the people who listened to their “peaceable” words and believed them to be their friends – were slain, just like the false traditionalists of the SSJV, the SSPX, etc. are spiritually slain by obstinately recognizing as Catholics, rather than denouncing as apostate non-Catholics, John Paul II and his Novus Ordo Bishops.  [One also cannot ignore the absurdity of a group like the SSPX “making deals” with the hierarchy it recognizes as the “Catholic hierarchy.”  This shows again that the SSPX is clearly schismatic; they won’t submit to the hierarchy they think (wrongly) is the “Catholic hierarchy” until the “hierarchy of the Catholic Church” gives the SSPX what it wants!  Any sincere person who considers this carefully will see how absurd and schismatic it is.]

No Jurisdiction” Heretics

Recently, many among the Sedevacantists (i.e., those who don’t accept John Paul II as the Pope) are being convinced by certain tracts that none of the traditional priests have jurisdiction to hear Confessions or faculties to say Mass.  This is a false claim, which is based on a failure of these authors to recognize the distinction between ecclesiastical laws and divine revelation, and how the former apply in a state of necessity.  This fatal error causes them to conclude falsely that no priest can lawfully say Mass; that no Bishop can lawfully Consecrate another Bishop, etc. in this situation.  It is not the purpose of this article to go into detail addressing this false claim, but merely to illustrate what I believe to be another clear parallel to the Machabees.  In the Machabees, the resisting Israelites were attacked on the Sabbath because the allies of evil King Antiochus didn’t believe that they would fight back on the Sabbath.  And, at first, the resisters did not fight back on the Sabbath because they believed it would be unlawful [read: they did not say Mass; they did not hear Confessions; they did not Consecrate Bishops, etc. because they believed it was unlawful], but after their people were all being slain, they changed their course and did fight back on the Sabbath. 

1 Machabees 2:32 ff. “And forthwith they [the allies of king Antiochus] went out towards them, and made war against them on the Sabbath day… But they [the resisting Israelites ] answered them not, neither did they cast a stone at them, nor stopped up the secret places [because it was the Sabbath], Saying: Let us all die in our innocency: and heaven and earth shall be witnesses for us, that you put us to death wrongfully.  So they [the allies of evil King Antiochus] gave them battle on the Sabbath: and they [the resisting Israelites] were slain, with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons.  And every man said to his neighbor: If we shall do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth.  And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places.”

 

Week of 7/9/04

 

Bob Sungenis on Anglican Orders!

 

“Dear Mr. Sungenis, Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae held that the form of the Anglican ordination rites were invalid because the sacramental powers of the priest and the bishop were deleted from the rites. Pope Paul VI also deleted the priestly and episcopal powers in the post-Vatican II ordination rites. Why is the form of the new ordination rites not also invalid? How do the new ordination rites compare with Eastern and more ancient Western ordination rites? Thank you, and God bless. Sincerely, Charles Martin”

 

R. Sungenis: “Charles, you're mixing apples and oranges. Pope Leo based his decision on the fact that the Anglicans broke off and were thus excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The absence of the sacramental powers are based on the excommunication from the Catholic Church, not on the form of the sacrament in which the Anglicans partake. Paul VI's actions have nothing to do with what happened to the Anglicans.” (Question 22, July 2004)

 

Comment:  This is completely wrong.  The invalidity of Anglican Orders has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are excommunicated.  The Eastern Orthodox are also excommunicated, yet they have valid priests.  Anyone who possesses even a cursory knowledge of sacramental theology knows that excommunication has nothing to do with the validity of priestly orders, and that the form, matter, minister, intention (as well as the signification given to those things by the surrounding ceremonies) have everything to do with the validity of priestly orders.   As Pope Leo XIII says in Apostolicae Curae, on the invalidity of Anglican Orders:

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does.  On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.  On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

 

Bishops who are excommunicated still have valid orders and still can confer priestly ordination validly, provided they employ a valid rite.  Their actions are illicit and sinful, but valid – as long as they use a valid rite.  Those who deny this, such as Mr. Sungenis, demonstrate that they don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.  Throughout Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII says again and again, in terms that couldn’t be more clear, that the reason Anglican Orders are invalid is due to defects in the Rite (not excommunication), defects arising from what has been deleted from the ritual, exactly the opposite of what Sungenis tries to tell us. 

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite.  That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [the true sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.

 

One would love to have a chance to debate Bob Sungenis; for he doesn’t even seem to possess a basic understanding of these issues.  He should stick to reading scripture and creation science.  But, unfortunately, what we are dealing with in Bob Sungenis is an obstinate, blinded, bad willed, dangerous heretic, whom the devil uses as a voice to defend the Conciliar sect of Antipope John Paul II.  The devil uses him to try to convince people that the apostate sect of Antipope John Paul II, which believes: that all religions are true; that we shouldn’t convert Jews and Eastern Schismatics; that the Council of Trent no longer applies; that there is salvation outside the Church; that sacraments may be given to non-Catholics, etc., is the Catholic Church.  He is used by Satan to convince people that the New Mass is okay, and that the invalid new rites of ordination are valid, when he doesn’t know the fundamental aspects surrounding the issue.

 

In recent weeks, here is what Mr. Sungenis has posted about us on his website:

 

R. Sungenis: “John, that formal debate with the Dimond brothers never materialized… As far as I'm concerned, they are working for the devil, and have made themselves their own magisterium. They are Protestants with a Catholic name.” (June 2004)

 

R. Sungenis: “stop listening to the Dimond Brothers. They are heretics on their way to hell.” (July 2004)

 

R. Sungenis: “As for the Dimond brothers, they are heretics. Stay away from them.” (July 2004)

 

One can see why he wants people to stay away from us – he definitely doesn’t want them to see his ridiculous, ignorant and heretical defenses of the Conciliar sect of John Paul II exposed and refuted.  It is also interesting that he recently began to call us heretics.  It’s obvious that he has been frustrated by the factual refutations of him that we have posted, to which he has no response.  One wonders if this hypocrite would call Antipope John Paul II a heretic, when John Paul II spouts heresies basically every week!  Probably not, and thus he shows his bad will.  Would he call “Cardinal” Keeler of Baltimore – who says we shouldn’t convert Jews to Christ – a heretic who is not a Catholic?  Probably not.  Would he call “Cardinal” Cassidy – who signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which says that man is justified by faith alone – a heretic?  Probably not.  Ye hypocrite, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

 

We hope for the conversion of Mr. Sungenis, but it won’t happen until he stops attacking the truth and ceases defending the Vatican II sect of Antipope John Paul II.

 

Another defense of the invalid New Rite of Ordination has recently been posted by someone.  We will be responding to it on our website soon. 

 

Week of 2/27/04 – False Traditionalism

 

The Fatima Crusader tells us that Antipope John Paul II is not the heretical Antipope who is predicted to come!

 

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, in The Fatima Crusader, Winter 2004, p. 32: “The Secret of Fatima tells us, Our Lady tells us, the Mother of God reveals that the great apostasy in the Church will begin from there, from the Vatican.  We can therefore surmise, and it has been prophesied down through the ages by the saints, that eventually Rome will be taken over by an Anti-pope, who will be entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical, unlike the present occupant of the See of Peter, who in his heart wishes to preserve and save the Church, but in his intellect, behaves as if he were the Church’s worst enemy, by promoting the very things which will lead to the destruction of the Church.”

Comment: “Rome will be taken over by an Anti-pope, who will be entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical…”  Hmmm?  Who could that possibly be?  Could it be the man who removes the crucifixes from Catholic churches and allows voodoo highpriests to preach to the people?  Hmmm… could it be the man who declares that all men are saved and that the Holy Ghost is responsible for false religions of Satan?  Hmmm... the man who kisses the Koran and asks St. John the Baptist to protect Islam?  Could it be the man who praises Martin Luther, the United Nations and the Social Justice of Communist China?  How about the man who teaches that there are saints and martyrs in false religions, and that Holy Communion should be given to heretics?  How about the man who says that Masses are valid which have no words of Consecration?  Hmmm… the man who declares that Christianity is the deep amazement at each man and that man is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?  Could it possibly be the man who overturns the Council of Trent, gives donations and relics to non-Catholic sects, and prays with the Jews for the coming of the Messiah?

Do the people at The Fatima Crusader think that the Antipope who will overtake Rome will carry a sign saying: “I am a heretic!”  Do they think that he will announce to the people, “I am the Satanic Antipope who is to come!”  Any sincere person aware of the facts can immediately recognize that Antipope John Paul II is “entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical…”  No phrase describes him better.  He has denied every major dogma of the Faith and approved of every false religion.  The statement by Paul Kramer in The Fatima Crusader that Antipope John Paul II is not the heretical Antipope who is entirely without Catholic Faith is, quite frankly, evil.

What’s ironic is that this statement is made in an issue of The Fatima Crusader which contains the first sort of attack against John Paul II that I’ve ever read in the pages of the magazine.  I was actually surprised to see that on pages 88-89, in an article by Paul Kramer, it is stated that John Paul II actually spoke heresy.  Hip-hip-hooray!  After 25 years of apostasy and heresy, he’s finally mentioned for the first time (as far as I’ve seen) as having uttered a heresy (not as a heretic, of course)!  It seems that the people at The Fatima Crusader were a bit shaken up by the recent Fatima Congress, at which it was announced that the Shrine of Our Lady would be open to all the false religions of Satan. (They’ll really be shaken up on Judgment Day when they find out what John Paul II really was all about).  Nicholas Gruner (Director of The Fatima Crusader) calls the apostasy in Fatima “the abomination of desolation.”  So perhaps that is why they actually ran an article in which the arch-apostate and main enemy of Jesus Christ, John Paul II, is finally mentioned as one who promotes heresy, rather than an article along the lines of “Pope John Paul II gives us the real key to the Third Secret of Fatima,” which they have carried in two parts before. Here are a just a few quotes which illustrate the type of heretical, spiritual dishonesty and spiritual deception in The Fatima Crusader, quotes which are geared to exonerate Antipope John Paul II of his crimes and promote him as a man who is just surrounded by bad guys. (The bolding and underlining are my own).

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000: “We must remember that it is only due to Pope John Paul II’s persistence in the face of obvious bureaucratic opposition that even this one document came to light after 40 years of being buried.”

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Release Raises More Questions”: “However, I want to make something perfectly clear here and now. I absolutely do not suggest that the Holy Father would deliberately and knowingly suppress some portion of the Third Secret of his own free will. There would have to be some other explanation.”

This statement is totally dishonest!  If there are two texts to the Third Secret of Fatima (we reject this idea, but this is what Nicholas Gruner claims) and John Paul II has read both texts, as Gruner admits, then obviously John Paul II knows that the public is being defrauded of the other text and John Paul II is therefore defrauding and lying to the public!  So what Gruner says here is simply wicked dishonesty!

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Release Raises More Questions”: “We are supposed to believe that if the Pope is told not to mention Russia in the Consecration, then the “Magisterium” has spoken, and no one may suggest that the advice given to the Pope is wrong.”

Gruner here is implying that it’s not John Paul who is primarily responsible for failure to Consecrate Russia, but rather it is the people around him who are primarily responsible!  This is not to mention the fact that Gruner continues to ask Antipope John Paul II to do the Consecration of Russia, a Consecration which he has no power to perform anyway, since he is not the Pope. 

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Vision Explained”: [Regarding The Devil Draging Down the Clergy]: “Pope John Paul II goes further. He doesn’t suggest; he affirms it. So both Popes are pointing us to that chapter of the book of the Apocalypse of the Bible. Pope John Paul II goes further; it’s quite extraordinary what he says in his homily… He gives us a pointer. He quotes Chapter 12, verse 3 and 4, in which the verses he quotes is, “and the dragon,” meaning the devil, “drags down one third of the stars of Heaven.”

 

Nicholas Gruner, The Fatima Crusader, Summer 2000, “The Third Secret Raises More Questions”: “The Vatican Secretary of State clearly did not want to risk embarrassing Mr. Gorbachev, promoter of abortion around the world. It would spoil the illusion that we have entered the post-Fatima era of peace and brotherhood if some Catholic journalist were to stand up and make note of the fact that Gorbachev personifies the very culture of death the Pope has spent the past 20 years condemning.”

These are just a few quotes that I quickly located.  One “traditionalist” priest once correctly described The Fatima Crusader magazine as an evil mélange (mixture) of truth with error.  Yes indeed, The Fatima Crusader is an evil mélange of truth with error.  In one part of the magazine it correctly labels the apostasy in Fatima as an “abomination,” while in the same issue it has two pictures of John Paul II, a quote from him on the Rosary, and tells us to “Follow his directive…” (p. 23)!  So, while they declare the event in Fatima an “abomination,” and even “the abomination of desolation,” they promote in a positive light the man who is ultimately responsible for this abomination and whose interreligious actions of a similar nature form the very basis and justification for the “abomination of desolation” in Fatima!  Thus, The Fatima Crusader mixes Our Lady of Fatima with apostasy; it condemns the abomination in Fatima while it promotes again and again the man ultimately responsible for it (Antipope John Paul II).  It finally mentions John Paul II as teaching a “heresy,” while in the same issue it declares that John Paul II is not the heretical Antipope who is entirely without Catholic Faith.  It lures its readers in by some beautiful truth on spiritual matters and Our Lady, while at the same time it leads them right back to the very sources of the apostasy.

If we were to examine more of the past issues of The Fatima Crusader and its treatment of Antipope John Paul II (with pictures of this abominable heretic – in a positive light – in almost every magazine!), its quoting from him in a positive way, without ever denouncing him as a heretic, then one could see that it is fair to say that its treatment of the apostate John Paul II is an abomination that cries to heaven.  That’s right, a pseudo-traditionalist magazine which claims to be “The Fatima Crusader” and which purports to give people the truth about Our Lady of Fatima and the crisis of Faith, which simultaneously promotes for years and years – again and again – the main source of the apostasy, apostate Antipope John Paul II, is an abomination.  No one, of course, should donate a penny to the heretical magazine, The Fatima Crusader.

 

Week of 1/30/04

 

The Novus Ordo Bishop of Kansas City denies the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady and the SSPX still holds that he is a Catholic

FROM AN ARTICLE IN THE ANGELUS, publication of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Dec. 2003, pp. 32-37: “… I pointed out to you [Bishop Boland of Kansas City] that George Noonan, on the radio program [an allegedly ‘Catholic’ program in Bishop Boland’s diocese], had denied the necessity of sanctifying grace for the salvation of one’s soul.  You [Bishop Boland] immediately defended Mr. Noonan by stating that it is not necessary for [to have] sanctifying grace to save one’s soulWhen I informed you [Bishop Boland] that George Noonan (on the radio program) was silent as to whether or not he believed in the principle of logic of non-contradiction, you stated that the law of non-contradiction – where two contradictory statements could not both be true – was in fact, false… During our conversation, we also got off on a tangent as regards the lack of respect shown by Rabbi Michael Zedik concerning the Blessed Mother and how George Noonan, as the Catholic co-host, did not defend Our Lady’s dignity as being a perpetual virgin.  You indicated that it has yet to be proven that Our Lady did not have any children other than Our Lord This quickly led into our last discussion in which you stated that the Church’s doctrine can change and has changed.  My father and I wholeheartedly disagreed with you on this point…”

Comment: Would you believe that “Bishop” Boland is the “head” of the Novus Ordo sect in Kansas City?

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra:
"This power of the Supreme Pontiff is so far from interfering with that power of ordinary and immediate Episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops… have succeeded to the places of the apostles, as true shepherds individually feed and rule the individual flocks entrusted to them."

“Bishop” Boland denies that sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation; he denies the law of non-contradiction; he denies the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; and he holds that Catholic doctrine can change.  Bishop Boland is an anathematized heretic.

Pope St. Siricius, epistle (9) Accepi litteras vestras, 392:

“Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness has rightly abhorred it, that from the same virginal womb, from which according to the flesh Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth.  For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a virgin, if he had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute that generative chamber of the Lord’s body, that palace of the eternal King.  For he who imputes this, imputes nothing other than the falsehood of the Jews, who say that he could not have been born of a virgin.  For, if they accept this authority from the priests, that Mary seems to have brought forth many children, they strive to sweep away the truth of the faith with greater zeal.” (Denz. 91)

 

Pope Innocent IV, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, ex cathedra: “…Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin…” (Denz. 429)

 

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra: “… the Son of God… temporally born from the Holy Spirit and Mary ever Virgin…” (Denz. 462)

 

Pope Paul IV, Cum quorundam, Council of Trent, 1555: “… the most blessed and ever Virgin Mary…” (Denz. 993)

 

Pope Martin I, First Lateran Council, 649, Can. 3: “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary… her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” (Denz. 256)

“Bishop” Boland is obviously not the visible head and authority of the Catholic Church in Kansas City, but the ruler of a non-Catholic sect which poses as the Catholic Church in Kansas City (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect).  And as incredibly heretical as he is, “Bishop” Boland is probably average among the Novus Ordo Bishops.  But groups like the SSPX still recognize Boland as a Catholic and the head of their diocese; their priests in Kansas City pray for him as their legitimate Bishop each Sunday at Mass; and they continue to call him “Your Excellency”!  Since they are obstinate in this position, this is disgusting to God and to Our Lady.

FROM THE SAME ARTICLE IN THE ANGELUS, publication of the SSPX, Dec. 2003, pp. 33-37: “Your Excellency… Your Excellency… Your Excellency… Your Excellency… Most of all, Your Excellency... Your Excellency… May God bless you [Bishop Boland] in your work as Bishop of our diocese so that the Traditional Catholic Faith is nourished and spreads such that your crown in heaven is ornamented by the many souls entrusted to your spiritual care.”

The last letter alone which was sent to “Bishop” Boland and published in The Angelus (publication of the SSPX) referred to him as “Your Excellency” at least six times!  It’s outrageous that they refer to this non-Catholic heretic, blasphemer of Our Lady, and total apostate from the Catholic Faith – who holds that dogma can change – as “Your Excellency.” It’s outrageous that the SSPX considers Boland the legitimate Catholic Bishop to whom they are subject and with whom they claim to share communion.  The words quoted in the above article from The Angelus were not penned by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, but by a person who attends the SSPX – and let’s hope that he comes around to see the truth that Antipope John Paul II and his Bishops are outside the Church of Christ, not in charge of it! – but his words show the mentality and the corrupt faith that is being sown by the SSPX priests among the people.  They are corrupting people’s faith by their untenable position, which recognizes heretics as Catholics and non-Catholic “Bishops” as the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  And this is not to single out the SSPX, for many other independent priests – and all who obstinately believe that Antipope John Paul II is the Pope – such as Fr. James Wathen and Fr. Gavin Bitzer (to name just two), cling on to the same heretical position vis-à-vis the apostate bishops of the Novus Ordo sect.

Pope St. Celestine, quoted by St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius [Bishop of Constantinople] or his followers, after the latter [Nestorius] began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated.  For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

 

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

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:

“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”

 

Week of 1/9/04

 

From the e-box: A hopeless and dishonest attempt to defend Antipope John Paul II and the New Mass

 

[To Most Holy Family Monastery] 1/3/04: “I recently received your tape on John Paul II, and listened to the numerous statements he has made with regards to the Catholic faith in his 25 years as Pope. I did watch the entire tape.  My opinion is as follows. Both the Catechism and the words of John Paul II indeed contradict some Catholic lessons that have been previously taught to Catholics.  The Catechism is not infallible, so any errors it contains do not change the Catholic faith.  As to John Paul II begin an ante Pope (sic). To begin with, only a future Pope can so judge him as a (sic) Ante Pope.  As to the issue of him being a material heretic, you have invented your own definition of material heretic. Because John Paul II has indeed taught many things which are Catholic, he is Catholic. If he errs as you interput it in his teaching, you still cannot prove it is HIS intention to err. And one must " prove intention " to declare and judge a person a heretic. The quotes you pull from Saint Robert Bellarmine and others are selective and not complete, so they distort what is meant. The fact remains, it is defined dogma ALL Catholics must remain subject to the Roman Pontiff and to suggest there is no Pontiff and has not been for 45 years, is not a truth  you can declare. If the idea you propose for people were true, then there are no valid priests in America….One item you selectively forget is that ALL priests in order to function must do so with permission from a superior. Independent priests are acting outside the bounds of the Church, and persons who receive the Sacraments from them, commit mortal sin each time... The Novus Ordo might not be what traditional Catholics want, but it remains valid. To deny that is to deny the Church…” J.G.

 

Comment: This ridiculous and heretical e-mail is typical of the putrid responses given by non-sedevacantists to the facts that sedevacantists bring forward.  It should be noted that I’ve spoken to the author of this e-mail more than once, so I know that he has demonstrated obstinacy and remarkable bad will in rejecting the truth which has been presented to him. I will not comment on everything that this man asserted, but I will note a few things.  1) The writer disregards the fact that John Paul II’s Catechism contains “errors” (actually heresies) by saying that it is not infallible.  But we have proven repeatedly that Antipope John Paul II invoked his “apostolic authority” to declare that the New Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the Faith.

 

Antipope John Paul II, Fidei Depositum, Oct. 11, 1992:JOHN PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY, To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and to all the People of God…. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrineI declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

 

The Catechism cannot multiple heresies and be a “sure norm for teaching the Faith.”  But since John Paul II has solemnly declared this by his “Apostolic authority” to the entire Church, we know that he doesn’t possess the “Apostolic Authority” which he claims to have.  Thus, Mr. G., either the Apostolic Authority of Peter has defected or John Paul II doesn’t have it – take your pick. (The fact that John Paul II enters Synagogues, Mosques, Buddhist Temples, Protestant churches and allows voodoo highpriests to preach from the pulpits of his churches should also give you a hint as to which pick is correct, Mr. G.) And the fact that Antipope John Paul II has solemnly promulgated the New Catechism is precisely why all the informed apologists for the Novus Ordo sect reference the New Catechism as the teaching of the Magisterium.  This I know because I’ve spoken to them.  They correctly conclude that [were JP2 the Pope] John Paul II has Magisterially ensured the New Catechism and those who reject it are rejecting the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

2) In one of the most stupid statements I’ve ever heard, Mr. G. says that “because John Paul II says many things that are Catholic he is a Catholic.”  Sorry Mr. G., but it doesn’t work that way.  You should be ashamed to call yourself a Catholic when you assert such heretical nonsense purely out of a desire to defend the great harlot (the non-Catholic Vatican II sect) in which you obstinately want to remain.  And you have even been presented with the teaching of the Church disproving this assertion.  If everyone who said “some things that are Catholic” were a Catholic then the Protestants, Eastern Schismatics, Old Catholics would be Catholic; for they say many things that are Catholic.  In fact, the Protestants confess the two most essential components of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation), as defined by the Athanasian Creed, but still aren’t Catholic because they reject others.  But with this statement Mr. G. rejects the Catholic dogma that heretics cease to members of the Church and he denies the unity of Faith in the Church of Christ.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):

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

 

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

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

 

To further put to bed the heretical assertion of Mr. G., notice what Pope Pius IX declares about the Old Catholics, who “say many things that are Catholic” and even call themselves Catholics! 

 

 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2): “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine…  But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”

 

Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways.  We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church."

 

 

This demonstrates again that we must consider as schismatics and heretics individuals who reject Catholic dogma (such as Antipope John Paul II and his bishops), even though those individuals claim to be Catholic and have not been specifically excommunicated by name. 

 

 

3)  Having no response to St. Robert Bellarmine’s clear teaching on how a public heretic would lose the Papacy, Mr. G. resorts to lying.  He says, “The quotes you pull from Saint Robert Bellarmine and others are selective and not complete, so they distort what is meant,” as if St. Robert Bellarmine did not actually teach what we claim he did.  This is definitely a lie on Mr. G.’s part; for he knows that he has no evidence whatsoever for this assertion.  And he has seen the evidence from St. Robert which proves his assertion false!  But he asserts this lie because it is an easy response to the facts he does not want to accept.  St. Robert Bellarmine could hardly have been more clear on this issue; he says three times in one chapter that manifest heretics (like Antipope John Paul II) cannot be the Pope.

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

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). 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 (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

4) Mr. G. asserts, “And one must " prove intention " to declare and judge a person a heretic.” 

A person’s intentions are manifested by his actions and beliefs Mr. G., which is why St. Robert Bellarmine himself says (in reference to a claimant to the Papacy!) the following.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:

“… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”

 

Furthermore, as we’ve pointed out, Antipope John Paul II is not merely a manifest heretic.  He is a complete and raging apostate.  It is not possible for him to be a Catholic any more than a person who believes that there are many gods; for he does not possess the essential mysteries of faith which must be held by all those above the age of reason.  The issue of “material heresy” doesn’t even come into play with people who believe that all religions are true – they are just not Catholic – period.  But by your heretical attempt to defend him, Mr. G., you put yourself in communion with all the multitudes of Protestant heretics who have never been formally and specifically excommunicated by the Catholic Church, as I showed in “The Devastating Dilemma.”  You further affirm communion with a pack of bishops who are worse than the Arians, who reject the necessity of Jewish and Eastern Schismatic Conversion; reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation; sign statements of faith with almost every heretical sect under the sun; repudiate the Council of Trent; and accept Luther’s heresy of “faith alone,” just to name a few.

 

Thus, you and I are in two different churches.  I am in the Roman Catholic Church; you are in a non-Catholic church of heretics.

 

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 129:

“Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled… we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion.”

 

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

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

 

5) Mr. G. says, “The Novus Ordo might not be what traditional Catholics want, but it remains valid. To deny that is to deny the Church…”  Hold on a second.  Mr. G. already told us that the New Catechism contains errors, even though it has been solemnly defined by his “Pope” John Paul II to be a “sure norm for teaching the faith” in virtue of his “apostolic authority.”  So how does he know that the New Mass is valid?  He can’t say that he knows based “on the authority of John Paul II,” for he has rejected that which John Paul II has ensured about the Catechism in virtue of his “apostolic authority.”  The reader should see the hypocrisy here.  How do the people under Antipope John Paul II feel so sure that the New Mass is valid when they reject the other things he has approved in an even more solemn way?  None of the Vatican II Antipopes have ever declared that the New Mass is valid in a way that is as solemn as the way in which Antipope John Paul II has approved the Catechism.  So, if one can’t accept his assurance about the Catechism then he or she better wake up and realize that Antipope John Paul II’s (or Antipope Paul VI’s) approval of the New Mass also means nothing. 

 

But Mr. G. affirms the validity of the New Mass because he knows that if it’s not valid then he is definitely in a non-Catholic counterfeit Church (which he is).  And it is very interesting to see how much the validity of the New Mass means to the false traditionalists who wish to remain united to the great harlot.  The false “traditionalists” who defend Vatican II and Antipope John Paul II are lightning quick to come to the defense of the validity of the New Mass because they realize that if the New Mass is not valid then the entire Vatican II sect is a deadly fraud, far more wicked and hateful to God than they ever imagined.  But contrary to the heretics who defend the New Mass and lead countless souls astray, the evidence that the New Mass does not confect the Eucharist is simply undeniable and irrefutable.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

That these are the words of Consecration in the Roman Rite – which cannot be changed in a significant way and have been changed in the New Mass – was dogmatically defined by the Council of Florence already.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, "Cantate Domino": "However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to THE FORM OF WORDS which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581)

The New Mass changes these words in a significant way by changing “many” to “all.”   But some say, “didn’t Christ die for all men?”  The answer is yes He did, but He did not die for all men “UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”  Most people skip over that important point: the proof that “all” in the New Mass signifies falsely is that fact that Christ did not shed His blood for all “unto [effective for] the remission of sins,” which is why even the Catechism of Trent explains that “all” was specifically not used by Our Lord.  Thus, by defending and/or attending the New Mass in light of these facts, Mr. G. commits “mortal sin each time” and encourages and/or participates in idolatry – worshipping an invalidly consecrated piece of bread.  Mr. G. has had the truth presented to him for a considerable period of time and has rejected it.  He also condemns true Traditional Catholics.  People wonder why many in the Novus Ordo are left in ignorance of what is happening; it is because most people don’t want the truth and reject it even when it is presented to them. 

 

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com