Questions, Answers and Comments

 

 

* If you are trying to print out only certain pages of this or any other document, use the Print-preview option under the File drop down option on the upper left side of your computer.  This will allow you to print only those pages you want to print.*  We obviously don’t post all of the questions we receive, but only those that we can post and to which we have the time to formulate a “post-worthy” response.

 

Some Q &A’s from Fall 2004

 

1- Are Novus Ordo Confessions Valid?

 

2- Is the Thuc-line Valid?

 

3- What is a good book for potential converts from Protestantism to read?

 

4- Without a true Pope, how can we be sure of dogma?

 

5- Concerning home-schooling and singing for non-Catholic services?

 

6- More corroborating info on the apostate Malachi Martin from a reader

 

7- Understanding God’s Justice and His hatred of the wicked?

 

8- Is Racism a sin?

 

9- Is it necessary to bash John Paul II?

 

10- Regarding praying the 15-Decade Rosary?

 

 

11- Why won’t the Eastern “Orthodox” accept the true Faith?

 

12- Can one sing in a Christmas concert that will be held in a Prot. Church?

 

13- Where are the Catholic priests and is it a sin to support the SSPX?

 

14- Could “Sister” Lucia be drugged?

 

15- What about “Pope” Michael?

 

16- Question on Outside the Church There is No Salvation?

 

17- Have you ever contacted Bishop Williamson about the dogma?

 

18- Do you know anything about Fr. Andrew Wingate, a priest who claims to bilocate, etc.?

 

19- What about Novus Ordo hosts bleeding?  Satan can’t do that!

 

20- Do you know anything about Fr. Sanborn?

 

21- What about the Hindu abomination at Fatima?

 

22- Are some of the pictures fakes?

 

23- Do you know of a Benedictine Monastery in New Mexico?

 

24- A Defense of Malachi Martin

 

25- Part 2- A Defense of Malachi Martin

 

26- Where does it mention the Rosary in the Bible? [Prot. Challenge]

 

27- Donating to a heretic for his work on Geocentrism?

 

28- What about the Holy Innocents and Romans 9:14-16?

 

29- Where is the condemnation of Feeneyism on your site and what do you think of Bishop Dolan?

 

30- Comments on the Michael Davies article

 

 

Question 1– Are Novus Ordo Confessions valid?

 

 

Dear MHFM: A relative of mine attends the novus ordo every Sunday and goes to "confession" only to a priest who was ordained in the traditional rite back in the early 1950s.  He wants to know is his confession valid?  If not why? Thanks!!!

 

MHFM: A Confession to a validly ordained Novus Ordo priest (i.e., a priest ordained in the Old Rite) would be valid if the Novus Ordo priest says "I absolve you from you sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  But the person you mentioned persists in going to the invalid Novus Ordo "Mass," and therefore that person is sinning gravely.  Thus, he does not approach Confession with the proper resolution to avoid this grave sin and therefore his Confession is sacrilegious.

 

Sincerely, MHFM

 

Question 2– Is the Thuc-line valid?

 

Your points are well taken.  Thanks for your helpful independent views.  Re my question about the validity of Abp Thuc consecrations:  What is your informed view?  Is Bishop [x] validly consecrated since he is in succession from Abp Thuc?  Thanks for your refreshing insights!  -Paul M.

 

MHFM: Dear Paul, despite the claims of some “traditionalists,” especially the SSPV supporters, the fact is that the validity of the Thuc-line cannot be questioned.  If it can be questioned, then any Episcopal Consecration or Ordination performed in the Traditional Rite can be questioned.  We certainly have no bias in this matter, since we have no affiliation with the Thuc-line whatsoever.  The facts are the facts.  The Ordinations and Consecrations performed in the Traditional Rite by Archbishop Thuc and those whom he Consecrated must be considered valid, because when the Traditional Rite is observed the intention is presumed valid, as Pope Leo XIII says in Apostolicae Curae.  Further, there is no evidence that Bishop Thuc did not possess his mental faculties at the time of these Consecrations, even if some of his decisions were wacky.  We know someone who knew and spent time with Bishop Thuc in New York just before his death, and he said that he was very lucid.

 

 

Question 3– What is a good book for potential converts from Protestantism to read?

 

I am enjoying reading your book THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but I think it is addressed to those who are already essentially committed to Roman Catholicism (of some variety) and not to potential converts thereto.  For
that, I presume, there are other publishers that you recommend.  Is Tan
Books the best? Sincerely yours, Davy C.

 

MHFM:  Davy, there are many good books, but the one I would recommend off the top of my head for a potential convert from Protestantism is The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis De Sales (available from TAN Books).  21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (also available from TAN) is also very good.

 

Question 4– Without a true Pope, how can we be sure of dogma?

 

Dear Brothers Dimond, Please comment; now that a true pope is not sitting in
office, how can a traditional Catholic be absolutely sure that a dogma is a dogma or not a dogma of the Faith, eg.  baptism of blood and desire? What is your take on the restoration of the true Catholic Church, and the papacy?  Will this be the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary?  If the Great Apostasy has been fulfilled and the Anti-christ revealed, is it not that the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ will immediately follow? Where does the triumph of the Immaculate Heart fit in?
    

God bless you, C. V.

 

MHFM: C. V., a Catholic has sure Faith in the dogmas because they were proclaimed from the Chair of Peter, whose teaching God will not allow to err. The fact that a Pope is not currently reigning has no bearing on the certainty of those dogmas.  Also, the Church does not need restoration.  It still exists, but has simply been reduced to a remnant. 

 

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 are in the last days before the Coming of Christ; there is no doubt about this.  Sincerely and God bless, MHFM.

 

Question 5– Concerning home-schooling and singing for non-Catholic services

                

I very much agree with most all your commentary.  However, one is left with very disconcerting conflicts concerning just about everything in life.  For example: my daughter, who has Asperger's Syndrome, has been home-schooled since first grade.  Soon she will be in high school and she very much wishes to attend an actual school.  The only school with a program to work with special needs children is a Catholic high school under the auspices of Vatican II Church officials.. .She mentioned that she could simply not go to Communion and act like the other children of other religions instead of actively participating in the religious activities there.  What do you think?  Would I be committing a sin by sending her there for the academic and social advantages?

Also, on another topic that is unrelated, but presents a similar problem:  I am a trained classical singer, a soprano, with university degrees in performance.  As a singer, the only opportunities to sing for profit are to sing for church services, be they Protestant or Catholic, or do concerts, which would be done in various churches, both Vatican II Catholic churches and Protestant, as well as concert halls…  My singing job would be as a cantor, section leader, and soloist at Vatican II Masses, or for concert organizations who perform under many different venues including many different churches.

If I insist on being a purist, I cannot sing, and therefore, I will not be able to use my talent or make money as a singer.  As you probably know, female solo voices are not allowed at the Traditional Latin Rite Mass, except as part of a choir -- and there is no choir position available in this area, except in the Vatican II churches.  Again, what do you think?  Am I committing a sin by singing at heretical churches, when I regard those positions as merely job opportunities?... Thank you very much for your time and attention, as I know you are extremely busy.  I am about to make the decision about the church job any day now.

Most sincerely, S. P.

 

MHFM: Dear S. P., thanks for the questions.  To answer your questions,

 

1.  Unfortunately, you should not send your child to the Vatican II school, and we believe that it would be a mortal sin, as her soul would be placed in grave peril by the pagan influence of the Novus Ordo "Catholics," not to mention the apostasy of the school itself.  Her chances of saving her soul in such an environment would be very, very slim.  So, she is without question better off not going and you should not send her.  You should continue to home-school her.

 

2.  A Catholic cannot sing for non-Catholic services or the Novus Ordo churches.  Seek first the Kingdom of God and His justice and all will be added on to you (Mt. 6:33).  The only response a Catholic can give is that to sing for these services would be a compromise of the Faith, a participation in non-Catholic worship, and a grave sin.  Sincerely, MHFM

 

Question 6– More corroborating info on the apostate Malachi Martin from a reader (see summer question 19 for the first part)

 

DEAR MONKS, I JUST GOT THROUGH READING YOUR COMMENTARY ON MALACHI MARTIN. I HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION TO ADD TO WHAT YOU SAID. BACK IN THE LATE 80'S I WAS IN CHARGE OF GETTING GUESTS ON A WORLDWIDE CATHOLIC RADIO PROGRAM. ONE OF THE GUESTS LINED UP FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS MALACHI MARTIN. I HAD HIS APARTMENT PHONE NUMBER IF I REMEMBER IN NEW YORK. THIS IS WHAT I REMEMBER ON THE ONLY CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE MAN. THIS WAS IN THE EVENING AND A WOMAN ANSWERED THE PHONE. I COULD HEAR HER IN THE BACKGROUND THE WHOLE TIME I WAS TALKING TO HIM. I REMEMBER I HAD ABOUT TEN OF HIS BOOKS AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS I WANTED TO ASK HIM. I HAD THE BOOKS NEARBY FOR REFERENCE. I WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE ANTICHRIST, THE DEVIL, THE CHURCH, ETC. FIRST OF ALL THE MAN [Malachi] WAS PLASTERED WITH ALCOHOL. HE SWORE LIKE A SAILOR. HE TOOK GOD'S NAME IN VAIN OFTEN AND USED THE F-WORD ROUTINELY. I KNOW IT WAS HIM -BECAUSE I HAD HEARD HIM ON TALK SHOWS. HE HAD JUST BEEN ON KMOX RADIO IN ST.LOUIS. I REMEMBER MY BOSS RUNNING TO TELL ME THAT HE WAS ON THE RADIO BEING INTERVIEWED. HIS VOICE WAS UNMISTAKEABLE. IT WAS HIM ON THE PHONE. WHAT I OBSERVED IS HE WAS PROBABLY AN ALCOHOLIC AND A FOUL MOUTH. I WAS TOLD HE ACTED LIKE A SAINT IN FRONT OF OTHERS. IT JUST DEPENDED ON THE SITUATION. WE DISCUSSED THE ANTICHRIST AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD BE A WORLD MANAGER AND WOULD PROBABLY BE JEWISH. I BROUGHT UP BISHOP FULTON J.SHEEN. I ASKED IF HE WERE A BIG PHONEY. AND HE SAID ABSOLUTELY. I MENTIONED TO HIM THAT SHEEN HAD WRITTEN A BOOK STATING THAT TEILHARD DE CHARDIN WAS  NOT ONLY THE HOLIEST SAINT OF THE 20TH CENTURY BUT A ST JOHN OF THE CROSS - IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. AS I SAID THE WHOLE TIME THERE WAS A WOMAN IN THE BACK GROUND LAUGHING AND GIGGLING. SHE MAY HAVE BEEN DRUNK ALSO. THIS SURELY MUST HAVE BEEN THE WOMEN YOU MENTIONED IN THE COMMENTARY. I SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND HE DIDN'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. THEY ALWAYS QUOTE ST.THOMAS AQUINAS - AND I POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD BEEN WRONG ON MANY THINGS. HE WAS CERTAINLY WRONG ABOUT THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. AFTER THAT CONVERSATION I WAS REALLY SUSPICIOUS OF HIS BOOKS - AND WHAT HE SAID. I TRIED TO INFORM OTHERS ABOUT THIS ONE CONVERSATION  - AND WHAT I HAD OBSERVED AND HEARD - BUT I REMEMBER BEING PERSECUTED AND ATTACKED BY THOSE WHO CLAIMED TO BE CATHOLIC. I LOST SOME SO-CALLED CATHOLIC FRIENDS. AS TO BISHOP SHEEN I SUSPECT HE WAS EVEN WORSE THAN MARTIN. IN SHEENS FIFTY TALKS ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH HE PROMOTES EVOLUTION BIG TIME. JUST AS IN POLITICS - THE CONSERVATIVES ARE AS EVIL AS THE LIBERALS. THEY ARE PROBABLY MORE EVIL BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SUCKED IN BY THEIR CONSERVATIVE APPEAL. THE DEVIL IS ON THE RIGHT AND ON THE LEFT. JUST A FEW THOUGHTS. ED FROM ST.LOU.

 

MHFM: Thank you, Ed, for that very interesting information, which is perfectly consistent with the activity of Malachi Martin as seen by others, as well as his repeated and public denials of the Catholic Faith.  There is an interesting story which corroborates this, which we would like to share with our readers.  We had a friend who is a Biblical Scholar, who presently lives in New York City.  He knew Martin very well.  At lunch one day, he, Martin and others got into a conversation about Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Gospel (Luke 16).  During the conversation, Martin said he believed that the Rich Man was in Hell, and someone at the table disagreed with him and gave the reasons why.  The person who disagreed apparently didn’t think that the Rich Man could be in Hell, since the Rich Man showed compassion on his brothers by asking that God warn them of the fires – activity inconsistent with a damned soul, according to this man.  So, when this man said that he disagreed with Martin, Martin alleged responded: “Who do you think you are a [bleeping] Saint,” bleeping used to denote the use of profanity.

 

But your e-mail sheds light on a reality that few can see because their faith is too weak, that men who present themselves as strong Catholics can actually be this wicked and evil inside.  So many souls have been misled by this phony apostate; he has effectively neutralized a large part of the traditionalists by his false thesis that John Paul II is not the real problem, and the damage and the evil he has done in falsely shaping the view of people is difficult to put into words, especially among many of the shallow SSPX supporters, who fawn over people when they appear to have knowledge and erudition, while missing the important thing – what is the substance of their message?  Are they saying anything of value?  People are so deceived by this heretical apostate, that “Catholic Treasures” was even selling a tract commemorating him.

 

Question 7– Understanding God’s Justice and His hatred of the wicked?

 

A few questions…The… question is about God's hatred, his abhorrence of the wicked. What exactly does this term mean? In Deuteronomy 28, God says He will rejoice in destroying the people that forsakes His ways. In other places, he talks about laughing at the wicked as their plans come to naught (I suppose as He precipitates them down to Hell). The Old Testament treats often of the destruction promised evil-doers. The Psalmist sometimes asks for the destruction of his enemies. How am I supposed to reconcile all of this with a loving God? I know Jesus suffered and died for us all, good and wicked, but I am beginning to rethink how I see his teachings, His Passion, and his death.

 

My understanding of the matter is that God hardens hearts. In one passage, He says you have before you fire and water, whichever you choose shall be given you. In other words, if I forcefully and constantly choose to be a hedonist, God won't spend my whole life preventing me from being a hedonist; he will abandon me to those false pleasures which have become my god. St. Alphonsus, in "Preparation for Death," talks of the way God withdraws His grace from the impenitent and leaves them almost completely unable to repent, easy prey for demons at the hour of death. These to me are examples of God's hatred: if you resolutely choose to contradict Him, He will largely abandon you to your way… How would you have me understand God's hatred? Also I would like to hear your interpretation of the words toward the end of Psalm 138: Have I not hated them who hated thee, O Lord? With a perfect hatred I have hated them and they have become an enemy to me. Is this the passage Jesus was talking about when he taught you have heard it said that you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but amen, I say to you, love your enemies and do good to those who hate you? What does this passage (about perfect hatred) mean?

Why does God seem to change His teaching in this matter?... As always, thanks for the materials; they are eye-opening and educational. Thanks also for the counsel.  Jason B.

 

MHFM:  Jason, thank you for your question.  God’s mercy is for those who fear Him (Luke 1:50).  When His mercy is mentioned in Scripture, it is given to those who fear, obey and cooperate with His grace.  Those who begin by fearing Him and obeying Him then come to see His love.  That is why Scripture teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 110:10).  But those who spurn Him, deny Him and disobey Him get His wrath.  And it is an awful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, as St. Paul says (Heb. 10:31).  What I think is important to take from your e-mail is that God’s truth is a serious thing.  He casts the wicked into Hell for all eternity; and He tortures them day and night for ever and ever, as the Apocalypse says.  This is important for us to understand because there are many people we hear from all the time, especially among the “traditionalists,” who reject the truth because they are too liberal.  They refuse to believe that this many people could be condemned by God and could be going to Hell.  They need to re-read the words of Jacinta of Fatima: “Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing.  ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’  ‘Of the war that is going to come, and of so many people who are going to die and go to Hell.’” (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94)

 

And it must be repeated that God is not unreasonable, of course.  The people who go to Hell deserve it because they obstinately refuse to see the truth.  God’s yoke is sweet and His burden is light (Mt. 11:30) for those who believe the truth, as people should – and for those who want to do the right thing with a pure intention.  But for those who deny the truth or refuse to see things God’s way or refuse to obey Him, it is an awful thing.

 

Question 8– Is Racism a sin?

 

I was wondering what your thoughts were on racism in Catholic teaching?

MHFM:  Racism is a sin, which is a result of pride and hatred of neighbor.  Racists are infatuated with themselves; they think that they are so great that they despise those of a different race or nationality.  But while they are filled with how great they think they are, they are a disgrace in God’s sight.  God doesn’t care what race or nationality you are; He cares if you love Him and hold the true Faith.  The Catholic Church is universal, i.e., it embraces equally all men of whatever race or nationality. 

 

Pope Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesia (#26), Feb. 28, 1926: “Anyone who looks upon these natives as members of an inferior race or as men of low mentality makes a grievous mistake.”

 

The truth is that there is really only one race, the human race, as we all come from Adam and Eve.  And while there is no sin to note distinctions in your nationality or your family heritage or to be aware of this, of course, or even to talk about it, it should also be noted that when this emphasis or focus on one’s nationality becomes inordinate, even in those who are not racists (e.g., people who constantly talk about how “Irish they are” or how “Italian they are”), it is a sign that a person is infected with pride and is infatuated with himself.  Some also use nationality to justify sins; for instance, those drunks who say, “well, I’m Irish, what do you expect.”  Sorry, but being Irish has nothing to do with the sin of getting drunk, but people dishonestly attempt to justify this sin in this way.

 

Question 9– Is it necessary to bash John Paul II?

 

Dear Brother, My wife and I find great interest in the articles you send, & also in your magazines we have here at home. Wouldn't it be better to pray for our Pope rather then keep bashing him? How can you be sure it isn't the Masons doing most of the damage and not him? For all you know, he could even have a double who is being seen & doing things he shouldn't. Anything is possible, but being our Pope, he deserves more respect rather then being called names. That kind of talk & articles can only make matter worse. Let's pray instead!  Thank you, J. & C.

 

MHFM: First of all, John Paul II is not a Pope because he is not a Catholic.  He does not believe in the Council of Trent, but holds that Justification by faith alone is acceptable; he does not believe in Vatican I, but holds that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted to a belief in the Papacy; he does not believe in Jesus Christ, but holds that Jews can reject Him and be saved because their covenant with God is still valid.  He holds that Islam and Animism are good religions; and he holds that all men are saved.

 

Why is it necessary to expose him?  One really shouldn’t have to answer this question, but the answer is that there are countless reasons.  He is the head of the phony Vatican II sect which is deceiving millions of those who profess to be Catholic; he is the main enemy of Jesus Christ and Our Lady in the world by far.  Since he claims to be the Pope, people are following his program of apostasy and accepting it because they think he is the official teacher in the Church.  Further, basically all of the abominations, sacrileges, scandals and heresies of the Novus Ordo sect with which one is bound to battle ultimately emanate from, or have their origin in, his activity or that of his phony predecessors, Paul VI and John XXIII.

 

One good example is the recent Hindu abomination at Fatima.  How was this able to occur?  It was able to occur because they were just following John Paul II’s lead in Assisi.  He did the same thing at Assisi: he turned the sacred convent over to false religions for them to worship the devil.  Thus, to attempt to expose the Hindu outrage at Fatima without exposing Antipope John Paul II is foolish and futile. That is why those who think they are opposing the evil of the Vatican II revolution by simply exposing the Bishops or the radical theologians without getting to the heart of the problem (John Paul II) are swatting gnats when there is a big bird right in their faces, Antipope John Paul II.  Those who fail to understand what Antipope John Paul II is or what he is all about are deceived and will be deceived about what is happening to the Catholic Church in the last days.

 

Question 10– Regarding praying the 15 Decade Rosary?

 

 

Good morning,

I have received the material I ordered and I wanted to say thank you,
incredible stuff. I wanted to ask what might seem an incredibly stupid question. When you pray all 15 mysteries at one time can you move from one right to the other? In other words after you finish the joyful mysteries and after you recite the Hail Holy Queen, can you start right away with the next Our Father and meditation on the first sorrowful mystery? Thank you again


Gene

 

MHFM: Gene, I'm glad that you received the material.  The answer to your question is yes, you can go straight to the next Our Father for the first Sorrowful Mystery.  And, actually, you don't have to say the Hail Holy Queen, etc. until you are finished with the Glorious Mysteries (i.e., if you are going to say all 15 mysteries).

 

Question 11– Why won’t the Eastern “Orthodox” accept the true Faith?

 

Dear Rev. Brother: I have just read a newsletter of a Traditional priest…This priest was also impressed by the great veneration showed to Our Lady by thousands of people in the [Orthodox]churches of Moscow and St Petersburg. It is a mystery that despite this great love for Our Lady, the hearts of the Orthodox have never been inclined to seek unity with Rome over the centuries. Can you throw some light on this?  One has to be obedient to the (true) Roman Pontiff to be saved.  God bless, NC

 

MHFM: That’s a good question.  If they were truly devoted to Our Lady they would become Catholic; but, in my opinion, the answer as to why they don’t is, in most cases, due to intellectual pride.

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, on Heretics: “We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under.  They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride.”

 

I’ve spoken at length about the Catholic Faith with the Eastern “Orthodox,” and almost invariably you discover that they suffer from obvious pride which causes them to refuse to submit in humility to the Church Christ established.  Many of them get hung up on complex theological issues, such as the nature of the Trinity and the meaning of grace, and they use their own ideas about these topics as reasons to find fault with the Catholic Church.

 

Question 12– Can one sing in a Christmas concert that will be held in a Prot.“church”

 

Dear Brothers, I would like to know if it is ok to sing in a recreational choir where some of the pieces are from the Gloria in Latin by Mozart and the Huron Carol by St. Jean deBreuf. This is for a Christmas concert for the general public, although the location is a United Church but only for its sound. This is a non-religious affiliated choir. I would appreciate your opinion. Thank you and God bless. -Barbara

 

MHFM: Barbara, no, a Catholic should not sing in the Choir if the concert is going to be held in the heretical Protestant "church," even if the choir is non-religious.

 

Question 13– Where are the Catholic priests and is it a sin to support the SSPX?

 

Do you have a list of places in the USA where one can go to mass with a valid/no BOD/JPII no pope priest, and maybe a school? If attending an SAP chapel, like Davie, FL, with Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, I find it difficult not to give some money in the collection so the priest/building can survive, or stipends for masses (spelling?) for the souls in Purgatory, is this a mortal sin? Let's say I move to St. Mary's, Kansas and send my children to school there, would it be a sin to pay tuition or to donate money for the school?

 

I try to do what I see as correct in the eyes of God, and so, I naturally understand your correct analysis of "Outside the Church No Salvation, period", it's an open and shut case. I don't see it open and shut for your conclusion that the SSPX is heretical for it's response to VATII and JPII, however, I do see your position regarding JPII as a more consistent conclusion than the SSPX's.

 

 

MHFM: The sad fact of the matter is that there are only a few priests in the country that are fully Catholic. To answer your question about donating to the SSPX after one has been made aware of their heresies, the answer is yes it is a mortal sin for one to obstinately contribute to the SSPX, and by doing so one is showing Jesus Christ that he endorses the idea that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews can be saved without the Catholic Faith, which they promote in their books. 

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."

 

Actions speak louder than words.  Thus, one can say that he disagrees with the SSPX, but if he still contributes to this group, then his actions prove that he doesn't stand against their heresy but endorses it.  If you were to move to St. Mary's you could pay tuition only (since this is required) but you could not give any donations to the school or a penny of financial support.  You could only pay the tuition fee, just like if you buy a book from them: you can pay the cost of the book, but you cannot supplement that with any additional money as a donation.

 

The SSPX is, unfortunately, heretical and schismatical for its union with John Paul II.  It is heretical because it holds that heretics are Catholics (which is heresy) and that people can be Catholic and completely reject the necessity of Christ and the Church.  It is also heretical for holding that the Catholic Church is apostate (namely, that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church).  The SSPX is schismatical because it holds that one can reject the solemn Canonizations of the man it believes to be the Pope.

 

Question 14– Could “Sister” Lucia be drugged?

 

I think you're right on target about Malachi Martin. He had a lot of people fooled. With regards to Fr. Wickens...his chapel has not been turned over to the SSPX. Apparently the SSPX could not provide a full time priest which was Fr. Wickens request. There is a search for a full time traditional priest for the Chapel.

 

With regards to Sr. Lucia....have you ever considered the possibility that she may be on "drugs" that would account for her personality change. I too caught a glimpse of the canonization service, and watched Sr. Lucia being escorted to receive "communion" from JPII and immediately after she turned and waved with a big smile on her face. She seemed to be rather confused.

 

If you've ever read any books about Opus Dei, it's a well known fact that they rely heavily upon "drugs" to soothe their subjects, especially the ones who begin to have qualms of conscience. Who knows...they may have JPII "medicated" too! Antipsychotic drugs have the side effects that resemble the "symptoms" of Parkinson's Disease. Remember when JPII first started showing signs of the "disease", it was denied that he had Parkinson's. Maybe it wasn't Parkinson's at the time, but since the side effects are irreversible, why not just say it is Parkinson's.    T.T.

 

MHFM:  No, this “Sister” Lucia is not on drugs.  We saw the “beatification” ceremony as well, and “Sister” Lucia was so enthusiastic about meeting John Paul II that she grabbed John Paul II’s hand and kissed it immediately after receiving the Novus Ordo cookie.  Supposing that John Paul II were a Pope and the Novus Ordo Mass valid (neither of which is true), the real Sister Lucia would never do this; she wouldn’t interrupt her concentration immediately after receiving Our Lord to grab the hand of the Pope.  She would wait until after Mass to pay her respects.  But the fake “Lucia” was so intent on showing everyone her devotion to Antipope John Paul II that she couldn’t even wait until the end of the Novus Ordo and the consummation of the cookie to kiss his hand. 

 

Question 15– What about “Pope” Michael?

 

Dear bro Dimond , Grace and  blessing of the Lord be upon  you for the work you are doing for souls. Since I discovered your website I have been challenged to seek the truth of the catholic faith. As a result of this I visit many traditional catholic sites .i understand that you maintain that the see of  peter is  vacant. I wish to seek for your opinion on the issue of antipope and the various claimants to the chair of Peter apart from JP11.who is the  pope? I recently got a publication titled WHERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. In the publication it is argued that  pope  Michael is the true pope of the catholic church.What is your advice on this. Does he have credibility? Does he have canonical status?pls dont be offended if I ask too many questions. I will appreciate a prompt reply to this. Pls find attached for  WHERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

                                                                    Frank

 

MHFM: Frank, “Pope” Michael has no credibility, nor does any person who claims to be Pope today. One cannot just elect himself Pope, as he has done.  If I recall correctly, “Pope” Michael was “elected” by a conclave consisting of his mother and two of his relatives!  The true Catholic Church still exists with that remnant of Catholics which maintains the deposit of Faith whole and inviolate, just like it did during the Arian crisis, although today’s crisis is even worse because it is the Great Apostasy.

 

Question 16– Question on Outside the Church There is No Salvation?

 

I agree that outside the Church there is no salvation, but I have a question:

Do you deny that it is possible for a person who is not a "visible" member of Catholic Church to be saved?  What I mean is this: do you deny it is possible for a person who has never stepped foot into a Catholic Church, but who has been baptised, to be saved?  I understand it would be an exception, but do you deny any possibility for such an exception?  Surely you do not deny that. Thanks…

 

MHFM: It is possible for a person who has been baptized, and believes in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, to be saved without having set foot in a Catholic church.  For instance, some of the heathen whom St. Isaac Jogues converted were instructed in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) and were baptized just before they were tortured and killed.  They were Catholics even though they never set foot in a Catholic church.

 

In order to be a Catholic and a member of the Church, one must at least be baptized and, if above reason, know at least the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – and not reject any teaching of the Church.  Persons such as those described above (baptized just before death by St. Isaac Jogues) are also subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like infants, by virtue of their baptism.

 

Such persons would not be exceptions to the dogma at all, since those persons are Catholics and are within the bosom and unity of the Church; they are also part of the visible Church, by virtue of their baptism and acceptance of the essential mysteries of Catholicism. 

 

Question 17– Have you ever contacted Bishop Williamson about the dogma?

 

I've been reading your new book, I've read every book I could find on the subject (anti-desire theory books), and as time goes by, the desire theorists (really universal salvation for "nice people" theorists) always come up with another excuse/angle, which should be answered. Well, your book answers them all (up to date). Lets see what they come up with now…

 

I have a question for you- Have you had any correspondence on the matter with SSPX's Bishop Williamson? He's an Anglican convert, and appears to be a reasonable man . I wonder what his reaction would be to reading your new book? Keep up the good work of bringing light upon error. Yours in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, P. V.

 

MHFM: Yes, we’ve sent Williamson materials in the past, which he rejected.  He is adamantly opposed to the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He is not reasonable, especially when one considers what he believes on the core issues of the day.  His declaration that he rejects John Paul II’s “Canonizations” even though he regards him as the Pope (a declaration which is quoted in our article “the Heresies of the SSPX”) reveals him to possess absolutely no Faith in the Papacy whatsoever. 

 

Question 18– Do you know anything about Fr. Andrew Wingate, a priest who claims to bilocate, etc.?

 

Greetings MHFM......Do you know anything of Fr. Andrew Wingate, he claims he's traditional, biolocates, and Mary let him hold the baby Jesu, he also claims to have visions during his mass and has lots to say about future events and has had past predictions as well…  he claims many saints have appeared to him as well, he thinks Lord Matreyia is the Anti-christ mentioned alot about the Garenbandahl prophecies & mentioned LaSallete as well.....Just wondering if you have heard of him before & your thoughts about him...........Pat

 

MHFM: Dear Pat: I looked at his website.  Fr. Wingate is a complete heretic who believes that Catholics should unite with the schismatic "orthodox" sects.  Thus, he promotes schism and the denial of the Catholic Faith.  He even promotes that these schismatics have true visionaries.  He also believes that John Paul II is the Pope and that John Paul II is on the side of God.  This alone proves that Wingate and his “messages” are not of God, but of the devil; for he denies the defined Catholic Faith.  He also promotes the totally false and wicked "revelations" of Fr. Gobbi, who thinks that John Paul II is "Mary's Pope."  Nothing could be further from the truth or more clearly from Satan - as one look at the photo galleries on our website shows.

 

Thus, Fr. Wingate gives himself away as a tool of Satan.  Wingate is probably having visions and, who knows, maybe he does bilocate, but these visions, bilocations and false miracles are given to him by Satan in order to promote him as a false prophet to deceive people and keep them inside the phony Vatican II sect.  These are the false signs and wonders spoken of in 2 Thess. 2 that accompany the reign of Antichrist.  In various places in the world today there are things happening with other Novus Ordo false prophets which are similar to the things that Fr. Wingate claims are happening to him.

 

Question 19– What about Novus Ordo Hosts Bleeding?  Satan can’t do that!

 

At the Novus Ordo there have been Eucharist miracles where hosts bleed when received by some of the visionaries.  Satan can’t do that!

 

MHFM: Wrong.  Satan cannot turn bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but he can make bread bleed with regular blood.  We learn this from the story of the Exodus.

 

Exodus 7:19-22- “And Moses and Aaron did as the Lord had commanded: and lifting up the rod, he struck the water of the river before Pharao and his servants: and it was turned into blood.  And the fishes that were in the river died… And the magicians of the Egyptians with their enchantments did in like manner; and Pharao’s heart was hardened…”


Likewise, in our day, Satan can make bread bleed with regular blood at the Novus Ordo if God allows it, which God does allow in the last days and as the final deception in certain places to deceive those who receive not the love of the truth (the Traditional Catholic Faith).

 

Question 20– Do you know anything about Fr. Sanborn?

 

Dear Bro. Peter and Bro. Michael: What do you know, if anything, about Father Donald Sanborn? Is he a legitimate traditional priest, or does he embrace any heresies?

MHFM: Bishop Sanborn is traditional in many ways, but he is not Catholic because he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  He holds that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith, which is heresy, and he even condemns Catholics who hold that only baptized Catholics can be saved.  Proof for his heresy is found in something he wrote on Dominus Iesus.  Bishop Sanborn writes:Does Outside the Church There is No Salvation mean that anyone who is visibly outside the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell?  No.  It means that those who culpably remain outside of it are going to hell   This is clear heresy.  The Catholic Church does not teach that only those who are “culpably” outside the Church go to hell.  It teaches that all who die outside the Church go to hell (de fide, Pope Eugene VI).  Sanborn and his affiliates don’t accept this Catholic truth.  He actually kicked a friend of ours out of his church because our friend holds this dogma, and in the course of the argument with our friend Bishop Sanborn admitted that he believes that it’s possible for Jews who reject Christ to be saved.  But that shouldn’t be a surprise, considering the heresy he teaches above.

 

Question 21– What about the Hindu abomination at Fatima?

 

Dear Brothers Dimond,

      FYI, hindu worship permitted in Fatima Church May 2004 . Any info on this abomination?  I do not see it in your website.
      God bless.
                           Celso V.

 

MHFM: Celso, We addressed that issue in the Heresy of the Week from 5/28/04.  You will find it in the Heresy of the Week Archive on our website.

 

Question 22– Are some of the pictures fakes?

 

Some of your pictures look like they could be fakes.

 

MHFM: No, they are not fakes.  Stop being ready to accept a lie and begin to receive the love of the truth.

 

Question 23– Do you know of a Benedictine monastery in New Mexico?

 

Dear Brothers,

There is a Benedictine traditional monastery in New Mexico… Do you know what their belief is on Outside the Church there is no salvation and John Paul II?   There is that prophecy that says that those Benedictines faithful to the rule will be saved and something about remaining until the end of the world.   Thank you so much.

 

To Jesus Through Mary, T. S.

 

MHFM: Yes, we are familiar with them.  Unfortunately, they do not hold the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, but agree with the SSPX that souls can be saved without baptism and in false religions.  They also hold that John Paul II is the Pope.  They are basically an SSPX Monastery.  Certain SSPX priests go from the SSPX into the Monastery and then back into the SSPX, although they would “officially” claim that the Monastery is not strictly affiliated with the SSPX.  I also believe that Bishop Williamson has gone there to perform ordinations, although I’m not 100% certain about this.  Thus, their positions would be in line with the SSPX.

 

Question 24– A Defense of Malachi Martin

 

Dear Brother Dimond,

 

We do indeed intend to order the 7 DVDs etc., in future, information unobtainable elsewhere in the era of the Great Apostasy… I should add also in honesty that your reader's and your own comments on Malachi Martin have little bearing on his many virtues, generously distributed to me as I described, and to countless others.  Once he left Rome and the Jesuit order, a campaign of vicious scurrility and slander was initiated, and continued until his death.  " Put not your faith in princes, " he often told me, and he sometimes did, to his detriment. This is not to raise Malachi to the altar, if such indeed were merited, and this God alone knows.  But second-hand tales of his drinking and untoward language are inadmissible in court, and without names and dates, I place little confidence in them.  That he at one time drank, and cursed, is without doubt likely. I myself shared a glass of wine with him in New York.  I never heard uncivil language from his lips but like you I have spoken to others who have; so he could be coarse.

 

Bear in mind, however, two factors:  one being that Malachi has already had judgment passed on him by his Maker, for worse or (I dearly hope) for better.  The other is that he participated over twenty years in over 200 minor and major exorcisms, a field of endeavor which most priests avoid and would not touch, as Malachi would say, "with a ten foor barge pole". More to the point, a standard feature of major exorcism is that in this deadly struggle with ultimate evil, the exorcist can expect his every unconfessed sin exposed, every error revealed, every secret laid bare by his foe.  I submit that someone exposing himself to the baleful hatred of Lucifer's minions in a state of mortal sin is foolhardy beyond reason, and would soon pay the ultimate and eternal price for such a grievous error. 

 

In short, I personally do not claim sainthood for my dearest friend, now passed from my ken, but I have little patience with those who gleefully shred his reputation, most likely to elevate their own worth in the eyes of others, a deplorable practice I notice most especially in the ranks of Traditional Catholics who preen themselves on being private potiffs for the others in their circle of acquaintances. I know such a trend is likely, given the shambles of authority now regnant, but I hold with my name saint Paul in such matters: in all things, charity… P.W.

 

MHFM: If the only evidence against Malachi Martin were personal accounts against his character, then perhaps one could scrutinize each of those accounts and, by slim chance, determine that they were all false (which I don't believe).  But Malachi Martin is on record with public heresy: stating that Buddhists can be saved and thereby denying Catholic dogma; stating that pagan religions glorify Jesus, which is apostasy; stating that John Paul II has never denied the Faith, which is heresy; and for years feeding people a misleading and heretical explanation of the Vatican II apostasy.  This demonstrates that Malachi Martin was not of God and did not possess the true Faith.

 

Question 25– A Defense of Malachi Martin Part 2

 

My preference is to leave public burnings at the stake to the English, and internet drawings and quarterings to others with better sources than mine. My position is that of a poor and sinful penitent who prefers not to participate in condemnations of those already having met their judgement. I doubtless have a great dearth of the firsthand evidence of heresy which for others is ready to hand, and given the obviously widespread diabolical disinformation now covering the world, I am most loath to sit and pronounce judgement on other poor souls, for fear of being so off-handedly condemned myself .

 

While the truly Catholic life is indeed a fierce battleground, with no quarter given, my preference is to follow our Lady's example and keep my eyes firmly fixed on Heaven, while avoiding sending everyone else in my path to hell.  You cut a very wide swathe with your keen vision, Brother Peter, and I suspect that whatever be my response, your blade is already at my throat, for I can discern no charity in your judgements, which to my eyes seem to be based largely on personal anecdotes. Outside of yourself and your fellow Benedictines, have you as yet found anyone who passes the test of salvific probity, or does the world beyond your borders stand condemned in toto?...

 

MHFM: It is a common tactic of liberals to attribute to the person with whom they disagree a position that he doesn't hold to avoid addressing his facts which they find so disquieting.  This is precisely what you have done multiple times.  You have implied that I am advocating "burnings at the stake"; drawings and quarterings; sending everyone else in my path to Hell; and condemning the world in toto.  None of those things did I espouse or suggest, but you bring up these emotionally charged ideas to skirt away from the fact that you refuse to admit that Malachi Martin's statements that Buddhists can be saved and that pagan religions glorify Jesus are heretical and denials of Catholic Faith.  If you cannot say that those statements are denials of Catholic Faith then I'm sorry to say that you don't possess it.  It is not my fault that Malachi Martin believed these things.

 

Frankly, it is not charitable to do what you did above: to attribute to someone something which he didn't advocate but which seems bad in order to cover up the weakness of your position.  It is also very cowardly, because it demonstrates that a man cannot deal with the facts.  The two facts that I cited above are not based on flimsy second-hand information, but public statements Martin made. 

 

I'm sad to say that if your attitude in this regard is "I cannot judge," then you would have said the same thing in the 4th century during the Arian crisis when they quarreled over that "little" matter - only a word in Greek - whether Jesus was of one substance with the Father or merely of a similar substance.  Many I'm sure said the same thing as you, "I'm just a sinful layman and I won't judge or condemn the Arians, let alone the Semi-Arians," and they wound up denying the Divinity of Christ.  To be unable to denounce Malachi Martin’s statements that Buddhists can be saved; that pagan religions glorify Jesus; and that John Paul II has not taught heresy, is to be unable to profess the Faith of Christ.

 

I hope you realize that you are not looking at this matter fairly.

 

 

Question 26– Where does it mention the Rosary in the Bible? [from a Prot.]

 

Where does it mention the rosary in the Bible?
      Thank you.
      Donna H.

 

[Note: this e-mail was sent by Protestant in response to the following quote of the day we had.  It was basically a challenge; it seems that she was a bit concerned about it.] 

 

“One day when Blessed Alan was saying Mass, Our Lord, Who wished to spur him on to preach the Holy Rosary, spoke to him in the Sacred Host: ‘How can you crucify Me again so soon?’ Jesus said.  ‘What did you say, Lord’ asked Blessed Alan, horrified.  ‘You crucified Me once before by your sins,’ answered Jesus, ‘and I would willingly be crucified again rather than have My Father offended by the sins you used to commit.  You are crucifying Me again now because you have all the learning and understanding that you need to preach My Mother’s Rosary, and you are not doing so.  If you only did this you could teach many souls the right path and lead them away from sin – but you are not doing so and so you yourself are guilty of the sins that they commit.’  This terrible reproach made Blessed Alan solemnly resolve to preach the Rosary unceasingly.” (St. Louis De Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary, p. 23)

 

 

MHFM: Besides the meditations on the mysteries of Christ and Our Lady (all of which are indicated in Scripture), the Rosary is comprised essentially of two prayers, the Our Father and the Hail Mary.  Both come from the Bible.  The Our Father is given to us by Our Lord in Scripture (Matthew 6; Luke 11), and the main part of the Hail Mary is found in Luke Chapter 1.  The Hail Mary is as follows:  HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE, BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB JESUS, HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD PRAY FOR US SINNERS NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.

 

Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou among women” comes directly from Luke 1:28.

 

Blessed art thou among women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus]” comes directly from Luke 1:42.

 

Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death” is not found in Scripture, but completes the above prayer with a sublime petition to the Mother of God.

 

Protestants fail to understand the significance of Mary because they don’t understand Jesus.  They fail to understand the significance of the following truth about Jesus.

 

Pope St. Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, 451, ex cathedra: “… our Lord Jesus Christ… indeed born of the Father before all ages according to His Divinity, but in the last days born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to His humanity; for us and for our salvation, one and the same Christ…”

 

One may say, what is Mary doing in a discussion of this magnitude?  Therein lies her dignity, her power with God, and why God wishes us to have devotion to her.  Catholics perceive and say “wow” at Mary’s role in the above, while Protestants remain blind to it and often attack it.  They fail to understand how her soul “doth magnify the Lord” (Luke 1:47) because they don’t understand who she is who gives birth to the Son of God in His humanity.  They fail to perceive the ramifications of this inscrutable truth.

 

The Hail Mary, which begins in Luke 1:28 (the Angelic Salutation), is so significant precisely because it represents the Incarnation – the act by which the Son of God became man.  As St. Louis De Montfort puts it, the Angelic Salutation (the Hail Mary) “has saved the world,” because by it (God becoming man in Mary’s womb) man had a chance to be saved.

 

“Blessed Alan De la Roche who was so deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin had many revelations from her and we know that he confirmed the truth of these revelations by a solemn oath.  Three of them stand out with special emphasis: the first, that if people fail to say the Hail Mary (the Angelic Salutation which has saved the world) out of carelessness, or because they are lukewarm, or because they hate it, this is a sign that they will probably and indeed shortly be condemned to eternal punishment.  The second truth is that those who love this divine salutation bear the very special stamp of predestination.  The third is that those to whom God has given the signal grace of loving Our Lady and of serving her out of love must take very great care to continue to love and serve her until the time when she shall have had them placed in heaven by her divine Son in the degree of glory which they have earned.”  (The Secret of the Rosary, p. 45.)

 

The Hail Mary, and Catholics’ petitions throughout history to the Mother of God, are prophesied by Our Lady herself in Luke 1:48: “…for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”

 

The Catholic commentary on this verse puts it well:

 

“These words [Luke 1:48] are a prediction of that honor which the Church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin.  Let Protestants examine whether they are in any way concerned in this prophecy.” (Challoner)

 

 

Question 27– Donating to a heretic for his work on Geocentrism?

 

I hope you aren't giving me the "silent treatment" because I had made a donation to Bob Sungenis.  I don't agree with his support of Vatican II or JPII, I merely supported his work on Geocentrism more than anything else.   And since I sent him my email telling him that I was a sedevacantist, he hasn't responded to any contact from me anymore either.

 

MHFM: That's like saying, "I just made a donation to John Kerry's campaign because I support his economic policy"; or "I just made a donation to the Greek Orthodox Church because I support their work and study of the early Church Fathers"; or "I just made a donation to the Lutheran ‘Church’ because I support their creation science".  You cannot support heretics, and Bob Sungenis is definitely a heretic - one of the worst in the traditionalist movement.

 

Question 28– What about the Holy Innocents and Romans 9:14-16?

 

In Matthew 2:16 we read how Herod ordered the murder of all the baby boys in Bethlehem and nearby who were two years old or under , because of the birth of Jesus. Since you hold that all who do not receive water Baptism and believe in the Trinity will go to Hell, what do you suppose is the fate of  these Holy Innocents who died because Jesus was born of Mary?

 

If you will permit me one more question, in Romans 9:14-16 we read of God's free choice in that He "will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Does not your insistence on an absolutely inflexible condition of water Baptism attempt to limit the freedom of choice of Almighty God?

 

I ask these questions respectfully, not to try to trap you with words, or to burden you, but because I find the matter of water Baptism so ultimately important and the Scripture references I give above so challenging to your position.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. M.

 

MHFM: Dr. M.: There is a section in our book (Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation) which deals specifically with this objection.  I will copy the section for you below.  The short answer to your question is that the Holy Innocents and the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law - that is, before the law of baptism became obligatory on all.

Regarding your section question: no, we are not limiting the free choice of God.  God has revealed to man what He will do and what we must believe.  He has told us via divine revelation that no one will be saved without the Catholic Faith.  If that is not what He does, then He would not have revealed it.

Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many brethren.  And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 THE GOOD THIEF AND THE HOLY INNOCENTS

OBJECTION- What about the Good Thief and the Holy Innocents?

ANSWER- This was addressed already in the section on St. Augustine, but it will be repeated here for those who may be looking for it in this section of “Other Objections.”  The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.  For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

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

In fact, when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to hell.  As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection.  On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says.  He did not descend to the hell of the damned, but to the place in hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter heaven until after the Savior came.

2 Peter 3:18-19 “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison…”

To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.” 

John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary.  She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master).  Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”

Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection.  It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 2 Peter 3:18-19.  Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament. 

 

 

Question 29– Where is the condemnation of Feeneyism on your site and what do you think of B. Dolan?

 

I have found your site and enjoy it very much. I am a Frenchmen who lives in Cincinnati and I attend the true Mass. I did not see any mention of Bishop Dolan and his large following here. I also did not see any condemnation of the Feenyites although I am not all the way through reading your site.

 

MHFM: Sir, glad that you found the site.  But you won’t find any condemnation of “Feeneyism” on our site, which I’m sure you define as a person who believes that only baptized Catholics can be saved.  You won’t find a condemnation of that because that is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, and we have a 300-page book on the topic. (see our website for more details).

 

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

 

Further, you also should be made aware that Bishop Dolan does not accept the Catholic dogma that all people who die as non-Catholics are lost.  He is affiliated with Bishop Sanborn and would share his position on the matter.  Bishop Sanborn on Dominus Iesus writes: “Does Outside the Church There is No Salvation mean that anyone who is visibly outside the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell?  No.  It means that those who culpably remain outside of it are going to hell …” This is clear-cut heresy.  This is what Bishop Dolan believes.

 

Do you accept the dogma that all who die as Jews, pagans and heretics are lost?

 

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

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[No response given to this question; but it is not a surprise.]

 

Question 30– Comments on the Michael Davies article

 

What an excellent article on Michael Davies!  I once went to breakfast with him when I was connected to a Catholic publishing company, and I found him to have quite a casual attitude about problems in the Church, which really aren't problems in the Church at all -- they are a counter-Church.  Anyway, God bless you!

Sincerely, Bruce

---------

Brothers, Thank you for the wonderful investigation on Michael Davies.    My first instinct at the passing of Michael Davies was to think of the help he has given to the traditional movement. But alas although I have to fight it every day, my novus ordo programming has not entirely been erased.  After reading your article there is no doubt that Mr. Davies misled countless traditionalists from the true faith.  I thank God that He has provided you with the wisdom to see through the deceits of so many wolves in sheeps clothing.  I continually pray for the strength and wisdom to defend the True Faith…Keep up the good work with your website and may God continually bless your apostolate.

 

God Bless, Robert

 ------------------

Good coverage of the teachings of M. Davies.  Except that I would add his notion of situational infallibility to the popes' published teachings on the faith and morals to the list.  St. John sums it up perfectly:  "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth."  (First Epistle of St. John, 1,6).  Vatican Council I infallibly laid down the first condition of salvation which is to maintain the rule of the true apostolic faith.  These people in the publishing business need to start learning the
faith. What incredible ignorance!

 

---------------

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

I read the Heresy of the Week about Michael Davies. It is really too bad he died faithless considering the work he did. But it really has to be said that he did all this research on the liturgy and Vatican II's novel idea of religious liberty, for ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING! He still held the new mass as valid and all the Vatican II hierarchy as valid as well! He would lead you to the door of sedevacantism, then block it saying that we can't go there!

Well, did you read his last "Letter from London" in the September 30th Remnant? It appears he was obsessed with Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" movie! He writes,
"The third in the series left me totally devastated. I could not stand up for at least five to ten minutes, a catharsis in the true Aristotelian manner. Seeing these constitutes, in my opinion, a literary and almost RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (emphasis mine) which I
trust that no reader will miss the experience of undergoing."

Think about this! Here is a guy with terminal cancer, staring eternity in the face, and he's getting euphoric from a FANTASY movie! We're not talking about "The Passion of the Christ" movie. We're talking about a movie with wizards, dwarfs, elves, and hobbits!
It's no wonder that this guy died suddenly of a massive heart attack! I guess his life was fulfilled after seeing such a "brilliant masterpiece". If only St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine could have been so fortunate as to live on earth at the
present time!

And you know, it hit me that way too. After watching the movie it took me a while to get up from my seat as well. But at the time, I thought it was because I ate too much popcorn and drank too much soda...that was a LONG movie.

Michael Davies was also of the opinion that parents of children over 10 have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (emphasis mine) to ensure that they read these literary masterpieces!
Now there's the real key to great knowledge: reading Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia. I always wondered how I got so smart. Thanks, Michael!

Bridget

 

MHFM:  I must agree with your comment here.  I don’t know much at all about the Lord of the Rings movie, but Davies’ insistence that all children over 10 have an absolute duty to view it strikes one as ridiculous.

 

 

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com