* 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 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. Missing numbers were deleted to save space or are covered elsewhere on our website.
Some Q &A
My brother asked me a question today (in the aforementioned conversation) which I couldn't answer: "If John XXIII was an antipope, why didn't anyone say so at the time? Why was sedevacantism a later development? Why would God allow the whole Church (as far as we can see) to be in communion with an antipope (even if they were so inculpably)?"
How would you answer that, Brother? When did the first sedevacantists begin to write and speak, and why did so much time elapse before they did? If the true Church must always be in existence (which of course it must be), and if this true Church is not the false Church ruled over by the Vatican II antipopes (John XXIII through Benedict XVI), why wasn't the true Church an available alternative for people in 1958?
If, on the other hand, we seek to escape this problem by saying that the true Church at that time thought John XXIII was the pope because his uncatholic nature only became manifest with the passage of time, then how could the true Church be in error (thinking he was their pope) for all that time? Any thoughts?
MHFM: I would answer your brother’s question by reiterating, first of all, that people don't attach themselves to the new Church (and thus leave the true Church) until they obstinately embrace the heresies of the new sect or accept the Vatican II Antipopes as Catholics after they've seen their heresies. Hence, people can be Catholic and remain part of the Catholic Church for a period of time believing that someone is the true Pope who is not – as St. Vincent Ferrer did, and as many other cases in Church history show. Thus, no claim whatsoever can be made that the Church didn’t exist under John XXIII because almost everyone accepted him as Pope. I say “almost” everyone because those privy to John XXIII’s fraudulent “election” and the illegal blocking of Siri’s, such as the Scortesco family, obviously had their doubts.
Now, to your question (how could the entire Church – or basically the entire Church –mistakenly believe that John XXIII, an Antipope, was the true Pope?), I would answer by quoting Pope Paul IV, who declared that Catholics could not accept such a heretical impostor, even if obedience were given to him by "all" – indicating by such a statement that this is a possibility.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In
addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We
enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it
shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch
or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already
been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion
or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic
Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
Obviously, Pope Paul IV wouldn’t have stated “nor…through obedience accorded to such by all” if it were theoretically impossible for all to give obedience to an Antipope. This clearly suffices to answer your brother’s objection. It’s quite obvious that this Bull of Paul IV was not only inspired by God, but prophetic. It’s as if God were making sure that what He would allow to happen in the last days (a counterfeit sect and a series of Antipopes, with the first one, John XXIII, being accepted by basically everyone for a short period of time) was foreseen in the Magisterial teaching of the Church. It’s as if God made sure that the resistance He would require of true Catholics in the last days and the Great Apostasy was given its theological justification and precision five hundred years in advance! This is further intimated by the fact that Paul IV said at the beginning of the Bull that he was writing it to prevent the arrival of the “abomination of desolation” in the holy place – a prophetic intimation that his teaching, and the issue it covers (a heretical Antipope in the Vatican), will be relevant at the time of the abomination of desolation.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1.…Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling…
Question 106- An important question about the interpretation of dogmatic statements and one’s authority to use them?
Some say that quoting dogmatic statements to prove that Benedict XVI is a heretic, that a heretic is not the Pope, that people cannot be saved without Baptism, etc. is like a Protestant privately interpreting Sacred Scripture. What is the response to this?
MHFM: Thank you for your question. The people who make this assertion don’t understand Catholic teaching or what constitutes fidelity to the Magisterium. This issue of “interpretation” was addressed in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, but we’ve recently come across an additional point that is extremely important in this regard. In its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons of Trent are for the use of all the faithful!
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.” (Denz. 960)
The word “canon" (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making use of these rules of Faith (the meaning of the word “canon”), may be able to recognize and defend the truth in the midst of darkness! This very important statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.” This canon teaches exactly the opposite of what they assert: that all cannot make use of these rules of Faith! This is a very important statement not only for the salvation/baptism controversy, but also for the sedevacantist issue.
The point of the dogmas is so that the faithful know what they must believe and reject, so that they are independent of the mere opinions of men, and are following the infallible truth of Christ. If the faithful have to rely on someone else giving their version or understanding of the dogmatic definition, then that (fallible) person becomes the rule of faith, and not the infallible dogmatic definition.
St. Francis De Sales explained it well against the Protestants.
St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s] determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?... And why not a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings… what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe.”
The “interpretation” ends with the words of the dogma itself! If it doesn’t, then it never ends, as we saw above – you just have fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation. If the buck doesn’t stop with the infallible definition (the Chair of Peter), then it never stops. I pointed this fact out to a somewhat well-known “apologist” for the Vatican II sect in a telephone conversation. He was arguing that our usage of Catholic dogmatic teaching (the teaching of the Chair of Peter) is like Protestant “private interpretation.” He was saying this in an attempt to defend some of his heretical beliefs which contradict dogma, such as his belief that non-Catholics can be saved. I said to him, “then who interprets the dogma? And who interprets the interpretation of the dogma?” After I said “who interprets the interpretation of the dogma… and who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation… and who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation…” he remained deadly silent for the first time in the conversation. He obviously had no response to the factual point that was made, simply because there is no response. In the heretical view of dogmatic teaching that he espoused, the Catholic Faith is nothing more than Protestantism – fallible, private, human interpretation with no Chair of Peter to give one the final word. The following quotation also illustrates this point very well.
“Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most ‘learned’ theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church’s infallibly defined teaching – to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.” (The Devil’s Final Battle, p. 183. *we don’t endorse this book, but this is an excellent point.*)
BUT CAN’T MEN MISUNDERSTAND A DOGMATIC DEFINITION?
Of course they can. Men can misunderstand or pervert anything and any form of teaching that could ever be transmitted. If Jesus Christ (the Truth Himself) were here speaking to us, many people would without doubt misunderstand or pervert what He said, just as many did when He came the first time. Likewise, just because some can and do misunderstand what the Chair of Peter is declaring, it does not mean that those who faithfully adhere to and make use of its definitions are engaging in Protestant “private interpretation.” It is just the opposite, as we saw from the Council of Trent above. And that is why the Magisterium has condemned the idea that dogmas are just “interpretations”!
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned (Denz. 2022)
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned (Denz. 2054)
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”
*Note: We’ve added a section about this to our main-page, in the section “Guide for the rest of this Website.”
Question 105- Question about material on the Faith and what we offer?
… I wish to know what you offer and I can utilise in my faith as a catholic christian
MHFM: We have re-organized our website, and added information that we feel is critical for people to know. So I would look at some of those sections on the website. We will also soon be responding to a few recent attacks against Sedevacantism.
Question 104- How to get this item?
PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS E-MAL
I WANT VERY MUCH TO BUY THE BOOK : OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SALVATION , written by Brother Peter Dimond I DON’T KNOW HOW TO GET ONE ??? LIVE IN NORWAY, PLEASE HELP
MR ROY LINDQUIST
From a brother of the same faith…….
MHFM: Hello, those outside the U.S.A. can purchase the book for $7.00 in US funds (price includes shipping). It’s $4.00 for those inside the U.S.A. You can send a check or a money order to the address below, or give us a credit card. The address is:
Most Holy Family Monastery
4425 Schneider Rd.
Or you may want to order our 7 video or 7 dvd special, which is $25.00 US funds for those outside the U.S.A. This special includes the book for free, plus 3 audio tapes. (This special is only $15.00 for those inside the U.S.A.)
Question 103- Any response to this attack on Sedevacantism?
In the new Summer Issue of "The Fatima Crusader" Nicholas Gruner and Christopher Ferrara have attacked sedevacantism, the latter vulgarly reffering to it as "the Enterprise." Please answer these erroneous remarks as soon as you obtain a copy or it is published in the internet, as many people… are using these very arguments to lure people to the clutches of the anti-church and the anti-pope.
MHFM: Yes, we will be responding, so please stay tuned. But we just got our hands on a copy of The Fatima Crusader today.
Question 102- What is the law on fasting before Communion?
What is the required time to not eat or drink (besides water ?) prior to receiving Holy Communion.
M of CT
MHFM: The 1957 law of Pius XII states that priests and faithful before Mass or Holy Communion respectively – whether it is the morning, afternoon, evening or Midnight Mass – must abstain for three hours from solid foods and alcoholic beverages, and for one hour from non-alcoholic beverages. Water does not break the fast.
Question 101- Why would you say that John Vennari is a heretic?
Why would you say that John Vennari is a heretic?
MHFM: There is a very specific and very simple answer to this question. Every honest person will agree with this, since it is an undeniable fact. John Vennari holds that one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. Here’s the proof:
John Vennari, Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11: “This is not the first time Father Ratzinger denied the dogma ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’. In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, which was a commentary on the Second Vatican Council, Father Ratzinger rejoices that the true teaching of the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to the minds of the progressivists who drafted the document, (Ratzinger was one of them) was that conversion is now an option for the non-Catholic, not an obligation. He writes: ‘…A basic unity – of churches that remain churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivate to seek it.’ Cardinal Ratzinger admitted on numerous occasions that he had not changed since the time of the Council when he wrote these heterodox statements. In 1984, Ratzinger said that since the Council he ‘has not changed.’”
John Vennari fully admits that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) has rejected the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation for years and still rejects it. Yet, he holds that Ratzinger is a Catholic. It is a fact, therefore, that John Vennari holds that one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. John Vennari is a complete heretic and is not a Catholic. The same applies to “Tradition in Action,” who wrote the article entitled “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” yet still holds that he is a Catholic. By continually admitting that people whom they still regard as Catholics reject Catholic dogma, they are simply mocking and denying the necessity of accepting Catholic dogma to be part of the Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9),
June 29, 1896:
"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 one single one of these he is not a Catholic."
Question 100- Do we accept that catechumens can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism?
Hello, Do you accept that catechumens have been saved without baptism of water? Thank you for your help,
MHFM: No, of course not. Unbaptized catechumens cannot be saved because no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Unbaptized catechumens are also not members of the Church; they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff; and they don’t have the Faith – but rather beg for it – which bestows life eternal. Unbaptized catechumens don’t have the faith to be saved until they receive it in the Sacrament of Faith, Baptism.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’ without faith no one is ever justified… This Faith, in accordance with Apostolic Tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows life eternal,’ (Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi).”
This is why catechumens who died without baptism were forbidden ecclesiastical burial since apostolic times.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907):“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
And it should be emphasized that no Catholic should support any group or priest or individual who doesn’t publicly state that he does not accept the idea that people can be saved without baptism by “baptism of desire.”
Question 99- Is the Holy Ghost present when Cardinals elect a Pope?
I have enjoyed reading your Email exchanges. They have been very enlightening and informative. I have been taught during my Catholic Education that the Holy Ghost was present during the election of a Pope and guided the Cardinals in their choice. If that be the case, then how could the Popes since Pius XII have been so heretical? I would appreciate you thoughts.
MHFM: No, the Holy Ghost doesn’t necessarily guide the Cardinals electing a Pope. The Holy Ghost protects the validly elected Pope from speaking error in his authoritative teaching capacity. The fact that the Holy Ghost doesn’t necessarily guide the Cardinals’ choice, but only the valid Pope’s authoritative teaching, is why there have been some very bad, yet valid, Popes.
Regarding the post-Vatican II “elections,” it is a different case altogether. It is a different case since we are talking about men who were not even validly elected by the Cardinals, due to heresy prior to the election and the fact that Cardinal Siri was the man elected in 1958 whose election was unlawfully pushed aside, as much evidence indicates. This illegal treatment of the Pope-elect Cardinal Siri invalidated the subsequent “election” of John XXIII, the man who began the Vatican II apostasy. This means that the man who started the Vatican II religion was not even validly chosen by the College of Cardinals. This is why his authoritative teaching, and the authoritative teaching of the subsequent Antipopes who came from this invalid line (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II), was not protected by the Holy Ghost from error. The Cardinal Siri Elections in Brief - relating to the Papal Conclaves and Invalid Elections of John XXIII  and Paul VI 
Question 98- How can I prove to someone that Casti Connubii of Pius XI is infallible?
On Relevant Radio… A so called "Catholic" radio station..They were promoting NFP, I called the show and read them many of the statements made by Pope Pius 11th in Casti Connubii…I kept stating over and over on the show that NFP is the intention NOT TO HAVE A CHILD in which goes against the primary end, nature & purpose of marriage.. My question is: What would my answer be to people that state that Casti Connubbi is not infallible.
MHFM: Casti Connubii is an encyclical addressed to the entire Church. In this encyclical, Pius XI plainly states what the Faith of the Church is on Christian Marriage. When a Pope plainly and authoritatively states what the Faith of the Church is in an encyclical to the entire Church, that represents the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, to which a Catholic is bound. In addition, there is solemn language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubbii which constitutes a solemn, ex cathedra pronouncement. Note the bolded and underlined portions:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Notice that Pope Pius XI here is stating in so many words that he is speaking from the Chair of Peter to bind the entire Church. He says that “the Catholic Church…raises her voice… and through Our mouth proclaims anew”. This is infallible, ex cathedra language; anyone who denies this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. This also serves to refute those many voices today who say things such as: “there have only been two infallible statements in Church history, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.” That is complete nonsense, of course; but one hears it quite frequently.
I have been reading your web site with much interest. For a long time I have been looking for information on the traditional Catholic faith, and I
believe I finally found a really serious web site on the subject. I would really be interested in any literature you could provide me with or
information on traditional Catholicism, do you have any materials you could send me on the Catholic Faith, its doctrines and the state of the church
scholarly booklets or materials?
Also are there any other web sites, organizations, or places you could direct me to for further information on Traditional Catholicism? I am particularly interested in your information regarding masonic conspiracies as this is something I have been studying seriously for several years, I am interested as well in zionist control of the US media etc. These are subjects most people are very ignorant of in America today and I applaud you for speaking about them.
I am very interested in the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, and their liturgies as well. Are there traditional true catholics and/or organizations representing those rites and liturgical traditions today at the present time? And do they have any web sites or associations you know of?
MHFM: With regard to many of your questions, I would recommend ordering all the tapes that we offer on our special offers order form, as well as our video/dvd on the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination. In addition to that, we encourage everyone to order and read the books: Preparation for Death by St. Alphonsus (abridged version); True Devotion to Mary and The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort; and Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh. There are many other important books, but those take priority, in our view. All of these books are available from Tan Books (1-800-437-5876). Regarding the Zionist or Jewish control of the media, if you want the information on that issue I would recommend the book The New Jerusalem by Michael Collins Piper, available at www.americanfreepress.net. It shows the profound extent of Jewish influence of the media and other aspects of life.
Question 96- What Pope said that non-Catholic religions are the gates of hell?
Brother Dimond and fellow Monks;
I have enjoyed your writings and videos very much over the years. Please keep up your good works. However; I quoted the following to a fellow parishoner,"Prostantism and other noncatholic religions are the Gates of Hell" There was a Pope who said this but I could not remember His name or the video in which the statement was made. Can You Help me?
Samuel G. Porter
MHFM: Actually, Popes have declared that “heretics” are the gates of hell. We quoted this on the “Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot be the Pope” video.
Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”
Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:
“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” (Denz. 351)
St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same in his epistle to Pope Urban IV on the publication of the Catena Aurea:
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Thy heart, Most Holy Father, who art lawful heir of this Faith and this Confession, gives watchful care that the light of this so wondrous Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. xxiii, xxiv.)
Along the same lines, though perhaps not quite as precisely, St. Bede the Venerable taught:
St. Bede the Venerable: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are evil doctrines, which by seducing the unwary drag them down to hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 274.)
The fact that heretics are the gates of hell, as officially declared by Popes, is something very important to understand. When we correctly point out that heretics cannot be members of the Church, and that the heretical Vatican II Antipopes cannot be true Popes, we are not asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. It is just the opposite: those who assert that the “Church” can be headed by a heretic and can teach evil doctrines are asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed. The fact that heretics are the gates of hell is precisely why all the Doctors of the Church who addressed the issue agree that a manifest heretic could not be the Pope.
Question 95- Question about one of Benedict XVI’s books?
I read with great interest you article on B16's 1982 book. I would like to read this book myself. I found this book at amazon.com
It has the same title but has a 1987 publication date. Is this the same book?
Thanks for your help! Terry
MHFM: Yes, the book “Principles of Catholic Theology” by Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was originally published in 1982 in German, but published by Ignatius Press in 1987. It has to be the single most heretical book I’ve ever read in my life. It should also be remembered that Ratzinger was the Prefect for the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” when the book was published.
Question 94- Comment on Heresy of the Week about Andre and Fulham
Brother Michael and
Thank you so much for finally exposing Bishop Fulham. It is really quite amusing that he hung up on you when he wrote in another article on his website that a certain cleric (un-named) had a problem with him and, instead of "calling him on the phone and debating the issue", the cleric wrote a criticism of him on his website. I told you before about my experience with Sister Mary Michaela (Bishop Fulham's secretary). She hung up on me THREE TIMES! When I called back after she hung up on me the first time, she denied hanging up on me, saying that she had to take another call. When I asked her why she didn't just put me on hold, she said that she didn't know how to do that. She then proceeded to hang up on me again, and when I called again I got the answering machine! Yes, she knew how to do that! Haha These people are of totally bad will. They think they can live in their little world and disregard the battle around them. All they apparently care about is ceremony. As a matter of fact, when I tried to pin Sister down on whether or not JPII was a true pope or not, she tried to stress the fact that that issue wasn't as important as teaching my children the Catholic faith! In other words, what's one heresy among friends, eh? Also, I found what you wrote about Brother Andre Marie very interesting. I had no idea that he is seeking ordination from Bishop Fulham. No wonder he has visited Spring Hill a couple times. Brother Andre had written a paper that stated that independent bishops hold no jurisdiction, yet he wants ordination from one! I have not heard that he ever retracted his statement either.
Another thing about St. Benedict Center is the fact that they try to show that they are in good standing in the Novus Ordo church by showing 2 documents on their website from someone in authority that says that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation has been declared and definitive, but the interpretation of the dogma can be problematical and it would seem that people who hold a strict interpretation should be given as much leeway as those who hold more liberal views! I wonder what Fr. Feeney would say about such a document. So much for everyone being "One" in Faith, when you can interpret a defined dogma of the Catholic Church any way you want to. God Bless!
MHFM: The fact that Bro. Andre wrote a paper stating that independent Bishops have no jurisdiction is very interesting. It just illustrates again what a complete schismatic and hypocrite he is. Regarding the St. Benedict Center’s desire to profess communion with the apostate Novus Ordo Bishops whom they know totally reject the necessity of the Catholic Faith, it is simply disgusting. Notice that they are attempting to show that their “interpretation” of the dogma is tolerated by their Bishop, even though he doesn’t believe it himself. In other words, “our Bishop doesn’t hold the salvation dogma, but he says we are allowed to hold it, so we are in communion with him.” They are therefore admitting that they are in communion with a man who rejects the salvation dogma. Unfortunately, they are complete phonies who possess no love for God or the Catholic Faith. And while they clamor for union with the apostate Bishop, at the same time they pursue ordination from a Bishop outside Benedict XVI’s hierarchy. Incredible!
Question 93- Follow up question on the SSPX’s schism?
I was hoping you could answer this question a little
more detailed. For example, one
would not expect the SSPX to follow who they believed to be a valid Pope in any
particular directive that was not valid. So, not following the Pope in
this case would not be schismatic, would it? But, unless speaking 'ex
cathedra' or infallibly, the Pope is otherwise 'human' or potentially
erring. Are there any examples
that you can provide (does not have to be extensive) where the recent Popes
have pronounced infallibly (or have taught something already infallible) and
the SSPX has gone against the Pope on the same directive/teaching ? By the
way, I haven't read extensively into your website yet, so please forgive me if
you have already provided an explanation into this elsewhere.
- M from CT
MHFM: Canonizations of Saints are definitely infallible and the declarations on Faith at a General Council solemnly promulgated by the apostolic authority of a Pope are also definitely infallible. The SSPX rejects the “canonizations” of John Paul II and the teaching of Vatican II on Faith that was solemnly promulgated by its “Pope,” Paul VI. (We have covered this in various articles on our website.) This is definitely heretical and schismatical on their part. It is true that a Catholic could resist a bad decision of a Pope or a Bishop. But that is not merely what we are talking about with the SSPX; we are talking about solemn declarations by their “Pope” which cannot be rejected.
Further, and this is a key point, we are talking about operating a world-wide apostolate outside the authority of the Bishops and “Pope” it recognizes. If the SSPX has to resist the entire hierarchy of Novus Ordo Bishops and its “Pope” for a period of decades over a matter of the Faith, then that hierarchy has fallen into heresy and defected from the Faith. Such a “hierarchy” cannot be recognized as Catholic. But if it is not a matter of heresy and salvation which is the cause of their separation for decades, then the SSPX has no right to resist them, since in that case it is only a matter or preference or nostalgia. The SSPX has repeatedly taught that these are not matters of preference, but matters of fidelity to the perennial teaching of the Magisterium and of resisting a “new religion.” Hence, they are schismatic for obstinately recognizing the authority of these imposers of a new religion, yet refusing to operate in communion with them. No matter which way one examines the issue, the SSPX’s official position is schismatic. There would never be a situation where a Catholic would be forced to resist operating communion with the entire Catholic hierarchy for decades. If one is forced to resist operating communion with such a group for decades, it is because that group has defected from the Faith and holds no authority in the Catholic Church. Either Vatican II and the New Mass can be accepted by a Catholic, and therefore there is no right to be independent of the hierarchy which imposed them – or Vatican II and the New Mass cannot be accepted by a Catholic because they cause the loss of salvation, and therefore they could not have been imposed by the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Can. 7, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 954)
The schismatic position of the SSPX is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that they discourage people from attending the Indult Mass! Please consider this carefully: the Indult Mass is celebrated according to the same 1962 Missal that the SSPX uses, the only difference is that the Indult Mass is celebrated fully under the Novus Ordo Bishop. Since the Indult Mass is celebrated fully under the authority of the “Catholic” Bishop the SSPX recognizes, the SSPX says one should not go! Please consider how schismatic such a position is: in other words, if you are fully under “the Church” they recognize as the Catholic Church you are doing something that you should not do! (And it needs to be said that the SSPX doesn’t officially hold as invalid or doubtful the New Rite of Ordination – as proven by the fact that “Fr.” Gregory Hesse, who was ordained in the New Rite, was specifically told by the SSPX Bishops that he doesn’t need to be conditionally ordained. The SSPX has no clear position on that issue, so one cannot claim that this is their sole reason for opposing attendance at the Indult.) To state it again: the Indult Mass is the same Missal that the SSPX uses, but the SSPX discourages Catholics from attending it simply because it is fully under the aegis of the Bishop they recognize as the Catholic Bishop. This really encapsulates how schismatic their official position is. The same applies, of course, to many other independent priests, including the obstinately schismatic Fr. James Wathen and Fr. Gavin Bitzer. Fr. Wathen and Fr. Bitzer will actually refuse Holy Communion to anyone who attends the Indult Mass under their “Pope” and his “Bishop.” In all these cases, the schismatic position is a direct result of the heretical position – recognizing manifest heretics (the Novus Ordo Bishops and Vatican II Antipopes) as Catholics and inside the Church.
Question 92 – Questions about Thuc line, no Mass, etc.?
hello brothers michael and peter… I think it might be especially hard for older people who were indoctrinated years ago that the pope and vatican were infallible and have to always be obeyed.do you agree? -some people have told me that the thuc line is invalid and not to have anything to do with any of the priests/bishops that came from that line…-i have been told by some people that there are no valid sacraments in the world since there are no valid priests in the world.is it true there are no sacraments possible because there are no valid priests because there is no valid pope with a valid vatican to assign them?-what is a person supposed to do if there is no valid church for them to go to and no valid priest for them either? how is a person supposed to keep holy sunday and other days? some people have asked me if there are no valid churches and masses around then what are they supposed to do?
MHFM: 1) A person must know his Faith. A person who learns his Faith will understand that he is faithful to the Papacy and the teaching of the Magisterium when he adheres to the unchanging dogmatic teaching of the Popes and Councils throughout history and rejects anything that contradicts them. If he knows these teachings, he will understand immediately that the Vatican II religion is a new gospel and a new religion which embraces false religions and teaches salvation outside the Church. Even a careful reading of the New Testament will inform a person that the Vatican II religion is not Catholic. This is precisely why all the educated Protestants make a mockery out of John Paul II for his endorsement of false and pagan religions. They can immediately see that the Vatican II “Popes” reject Christ as the only path to heaven. The problem with a person such as you described – and there are many like him out there – is that he doesn’t care enough to learn about the Catholic Faith and so is led astray through his own lack of interest.
2) The Thuc line is as valid as any line there is. That is not to address the theological positions held by all of these priests, however. 3) There are valid priests today. The fact that there is no Pope has no bearing on the validity, which is determined by whether the traditional rites of the Church were used. The problem is that there are almost no fully Catholic priests today. 4) If there is no acceptable traditional Mass available for you or within a reasonable distance then there is no obligation to go. In that case, you keep Sunday holy by praying the Rosary (which people should do each day, of course), preferably the entire 15 decades.
Question 91 – Can a person ever receive baptism validly without receiving the remission of original sin?
Dear Brother Peter,
I sent you and Br. Michael an email in January concerning a question I asked regarding the SSPX and a theological opinion they have propagated concerning the mark of Baptism and Original Sin existing simultaneously in the soul. It has been over 4 months with only a "please wait" response from you. I am not looking for any explanation on this question, only a "yes" or "no" answer. I again ask the question: Do you (and Br. Michael) believe that Original Sin can be present in the soul simultaneously with the mark of a valid Baptism?
Please respond. Thank you !
MHFM: This is a finer theological point. The answer to your question is yes. The Church teaches that a heretic can be validly baptized if he is baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But if a person is baptized as a heretic – for instance, if he rejects the dogma Outside the Church there is No Salvation, as Benedict XVI does – then his baptism, though valid, would confer no grace. His heresy is an impediment to him receiving the grace of baptism. He receives the character or the mark of baptism validly but does not receive the grace of baptism and doesn’t have his sins remitted and he is not justified, since he is outside the church. Outside the Church there is no remission of sins.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.
This is the express teaching of Pope St. Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Quia charitati, June 22, 601: “From the ancient institution of the Fathers we have learned that those who are baptized in the name of the Trinity, although amid heresy, whenever they return to holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of their mother the Church either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or with a profession of faith alone…because the holy baptism, which they received among the heretics, at that time restores the power of cleansing in them when they have been united to the holy faith and the heart of the universal Church.” (Denz. 249)
Here we see Pope Gregory the Great explaining that those baptized as heretics are not cleansed, i.e., their sins are not remitted. They are not cleansed by the baptism they received among the heretics until they remove the heresy and are united to the true Faith. The baptism they received is valid; they don’t need to be rebaptized, but it is not efficacious for them until they remove the heresy. At that point, they become justified by the power of the baptism already received. We also see this principle illustrated in Sess. 7 of the Council of Trent on the Sacraments in General:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7 on the Sacraments in General, Can. 6.: “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace and justice… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 849)
Here we see that the sacraments do not confer the grace which they signify on those who place an obstacle in the way, such as heresy. The above is also the teaching of Doctors of the Church. And this teaching does not contradict any of the other definitions of Trent, of course, such as in Sess. 5 on Original Sin:
Pope Paul III, Council of
Trent, Session 5:
"If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema." (Denz. 792)
Notice that this anathematizes anyone who says that original sin is not remitted “by the grace” conferred in baptism. Whenever grace is conferred in baptism original sin is infallibly remitted, such as with the baptism of infants or anyone else who doesn’t place an obstacle to receiving the grace in the way. But, in the case described above of a baptism of a heretic, no grace is conferred at all and thus original sin is not remitted. Hence, we can see that the clause “by the grace” is very important and shows the infallibility of dogmatic definitions and the protection of the Holy Ghost over the teaching of the Church.
Question 90 – Bob S. on “or” vs. “and” in the Council of Trent?
MHFM: In a recent Q and A about Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent (relating to baptism of desire issue), Bob. S. tells people that Trent teaches baptism of desire and that it is false to assert that “or” can have a meaning that is equivalent to “and” in a Council. Here is the question and his response:
[Question to Bob. S.] Dear Robert S, Thanks for your response. However, I already demonstrated the use of the word "or" when it acts like an "and" when I wrote the sentence about cars. Here's that sentence from my email to you: Just like your car won't work without oil or gas. Both oil and gas are necessary to operate a car.
R. Sungenis: Nice try, but using "or" when you mean "and" is bad grammar. The Council of Trent doesn't speak like a southern American. I suggest you examine the way Trent used the word "or" throughout its declarations. You won't find one time that "or" means "and."
MHFM: First, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent doesn’t teach baptism of desire. For a full discussion of this passage, including an interesting e-mail from a Latin scholar which directly refutes the claim above, click here: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, and then scroll to section 16, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent and click on it.
Second, I guess Mr. Sungenis didn’t read our book, for we showed that a text of the Council of Florence used the word “or” in a context that clearly renders its meaning as “and.”
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 [aut] 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.”
Here we see this Latin version of the Council of Florence using the word “or” (Latin: aut) to have a meaning that is clearly equivalent to “and.” (The Latin is quoted in the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 578. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils cites Acta sacri oecumenici councilii Florentini, Rome 1638). The text declares that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved. Thus, this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”
Similarly, in the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council of Trent strictly forbids anyone to “believe, preach or teach” (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”
Does “or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or” (aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in Sess. 6, chapter 4 (see below) “or” means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to mean “and” (or “both”) in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church.”
Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning “and” or “both.” And these examples, when we consider the wording of the passage [of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent], refute the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire. To say that Justification cannot take place without baptism or the desire for it is not to say that justification can take place by water baptism or the desire for it. Just like if I say: “a sacrament cannot take place without matter or form” – which means that both are needed – does not mean that a sacrament can take place with either matter or form. And that is why, in the very same sentence, the Council of Trent proceeds to declare: as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom God (John 3:5).
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
Baptism of desire means that John 3:5 is not as it is written, that it is not necessary for every man to be born again of water, which contradicts that very sentence of Trent! And this is why in every single instance it dealt with John 3:5, the Council of Trent authoritatively declared John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written: there are no exceptions to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. By the way, Mr. Sungenis also consistently uses the false translation of “except through” instead of “without” almost every time he quotes Sess. 6, Chap. 4. This is pathetically dishonest. But what do you expect from a heretic like him, who indicated to a Protestant who was attacking the Catholic Faith that he was not a heretic because of “invincible ignorance”!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Question 89 – How can the SSPX be in schism for not being under an Antipope?
If Benedict XVI is an antipope, how can the SSPX be in schism for not operating under him?
MHFM: Allow me to give an example. It is the Church’s law that Catholics are forbidden to eat meat on Fridays under pain of mortal sin. Suppose a man wakes up one day and thinks it’s Friday. He says to himself “I don’t care about the Church’s law I’m going to eat meat today,” and then proceeds to eat meat. He then goes to work and discovers that it isn’t Friday, but actually it is Thursday. It doesn’t matter; he is still guilty of mortal sin because in his conscience he thought it was Friday and deliberately ate meat anyway.
Likewise, the SSPX obstinately professes that Benedict XVI is the Pope after thirty years of evaluating the Vatican II apostasy which he now heads. They profess that the Novus Ordo Bishops in communion with him are the hierarchy. Yet, they refuse to operate under them. They are obstinately schismatic at this point. The fact that Benedict XVI is undoubtedly an Antipope and the Novus Ordo Bishops a false hierarchy doesn’t change their guilt in the same way that the man who discovered it was Thursday was still guilty for eating meat because he thought it was Friday.
Question 88 – Question about Benedict XVI and a note on one of his heresies
Hi, I read your "30 astonishing heresies", and I was amazed at what I read! And in the article Benedict XVI was labeled an antipope. My question - when do you think that he'll be deposed?
MHFM: He has already been “deposed.” He was “deposed” in advance, if you will. The fact that he is not even remotely Catholic excluded him from being validly elected at all in the first place.
Pope Paul IV, Bull
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine,
decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any
Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any
Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any
legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as
Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
By the way, we’ve added some more context to the first heresy covered in that article, since it is such an important heresy. If you run into anyone defending Antipope Benedict XVI, just copy this heresy for him. It is totally devastating to any claim that he is a Catholic.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, 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 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.”
I quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is not being taken out of context in any way. Ratzinger specifically mentions, and then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted (and accept Vatican I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”). He specifically rejects it as the way to unity. This is totally heretical and it proves that he is a complete non-Catholic heretic.
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…”
Question 87 – Question about what it means to say people profess “communion” with someone?
When you say that groups profess communion with someone what do you mean?
MHFM: When we say that groups profess “communion” with someone we mean that they recognize him as a fellow member of the Catholic Church. For instance, when we say that the Society of St. Pius X professes communion with Benedict XVI by recognizing him as the Pope – even though the SSPX refuses to operate under his hierarchy – this means that they hold him to be in the same Church and as one who holds the same Faith. They profess to be in union with him (communion) in the Church of Jesus Christ. Likewise, when we say that the St. Benedict Center, for example, recognizes the apostate Novus Ordo Bishops as the Catholic Bishops (which is a fact), we correctly point out that they profess communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy. They profess to be in the same Church as the Novus Ordo apostate Bishops. By professing communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, they hold that the Novus Ordo Bishops are part of the same Church and have the same Faith as they have.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June 29, 1896:
“For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino [by divine law].”
This is important to understand. When you encounter people who refuse to take the sedevacantist position, you often ask them: “okay, so then you have the same Faith as Benedict XVI,” and they often respond: “no.” They say: “he’s the Pope, but I don’t have the same Faith as he does.” This is totally heretical; it is a denial of the unity of the Church; it is a denial of the unity of Faith in the Church; and it is a denial of the unity of communion in the Church. If Benedict XVI is your “Pope” that means that you hold that he has the same Faith. There is no way around that. If you admit that he doesn’t have your Faith then you are admitting that he is not the Pope.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Question 86 – Question about a traditionalist bishop?
I am wondering if you have heard of a Bishop Francis Slupski, CSSR? I will be traveling to Illinois this summer and heard that he resides at Regina Caeli Chapel in Rockford. The only information I can find about him is that he was consecrated by Bishop McKenna in 1999. Since there is no information about his ordination, I am trying to determine whether he was even validly ordained, and whether or not he embraces the same heretical positions as Bishop McKenna. I am quite concerned about this, as I may be moving to this area and want to find out what I will be getting in to. Thank you for your help, and may God reward you for your dedicated work!
New York, NY
MHFM: Yes, we’ve heard of him. As far as we know he is a validly ordained priest (ordained about 50 years ago in Poland, I believe). We also believe that he is a validly consecrated Bishop. One of us called him a few years ago and attempted to charitably discuss some of these issues. As soon as he heard who it was he immediately hung up the telephone. There is only one word for this: coward. He probably holds heretical positions or accepts those who do, but, of course, we didn’t get a chance to ask him about what he believes for the reason described above.
Question 85 – Question about indefectibility, Papal Election?
I have been reading your website and troubling questions came to my mind. If no priest ordained in the new rite is valid, and all these novus ordo bishops and cardinals are heretics; then who could possibly validly elect a Pope? This is very disturbing to me because this almost seems as if the Catholic Church is dead. Who is left to carry on with ordinations, sacraments, and papal elections? Even if there were a few bishops and priests that kept the faith, how could we find them and follow them? How would we know? This is so terribly sad. What I have read at your website makes much sense, but I am not sure where to turn if you are right. Thank you so much for your time and effort, and for all you are doing.
MHFM: First, you recognize whether one has kept the Faith by determining whether his teaching is in line with the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. Second, regarding Papal Elections, before the College of Cardinals was created in the 12th century the Pope was elected by the clergy and faithful of Rome. This means that a Papal Election by the College of Cardinals is a disciplinary measure that is not inextricably bound up with the election of a Pope. Theoretically, if a major catastrophe wiped out the entire population of Rome including the entire College of Cardinals and Novus Ordo functionaries, leaving only some true Traditional Catholics and Traditional priests, a true Pope could be elected in Rome by a few remaining faithful and some fully Traditional Catholic clergy. That, of course, would be a miraculous and extraordinary event; but it is a possible way for a future Pope to be elected. However, in my opinion, there doesn’t have to be another Pope before the Second Coming of Christ.
Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487):
“The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
Third, you say that it seems as if the Catholic Church is dead. The fact is that it is predicted that, at the very end just before the Second Coming of Christ, the Catholic Church will be almost dead. The Church was almost overwhelmed by Arianism in the 4th Century. If the final crisis is to be ever worse, then we can see that what we are dealing with is not unthinkable or impossible. The Church can and will never die; it will remain until the end of time. The gates of hell will not prevail; but it is predicted that at the very end it will be such a crisis that the Church will be reduced so much so that it has almost died. That is why Christ asked if there would be any faith at all when He returned; and that is why Our Lady prophesied that the Church “will be in eclipse” – almost completely blocked out of view, except for a tiny remnant.
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist… the Church will be in eclipse… Who will be the victor if God does not shorten the length of the test?... It is time; the sun is darkening; only faith will survive.”
Luke 18:8 “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”
Regarding your question about ordinations, there is at least one fully Catholic priest in the country today. The fact of the matter is if the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church is definitely dead – which, of course, we know is not true. The Vatican II sect rejects the entire Catholic Faith and the entire Gospel. Even the current head of the Vatican II sect fully admits that the solemn teaching of Vatican II specifically rejects the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium on religious liberty and other religions. He admits that Vatican II’s teaching is a “countersyllabus” to Pope Pius IX’s authoritative Syllabus of Errors.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage
Anyone with an ounce of faith can easily recognize that the religion of the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic religion and that those who embrace it and the New Mass have left the Catholic Church, leaving the Church to consist of those who continue to adhere to the unchanging Catholic Faith without any compromise or dilution.
Question 84 – Question about a “traditional” priest?
Thank you for your informative website. I have question: have you heard of Father Patrick Perez? Is he a sedevacantist? Thank you very much.
MHFM: “Fr.” Perez is not a sedevacantist. He is an independent “priest” who recognizes the Vatican II apostate hierarchy, but yet remains completely independent of them, just like the SSPX. This, as our material has pointed out, is a schismatic and untenable position. Some months back Perez bolted a picture of John Paul II back up at his church! Perez was also ordained by a Bishop who was made a Bishop in the New Rite of Consecration, which is doubtfully valid. This means that Perez cannot be considered a validly ordained priest. Perez also denies the dogma that only baptized Catholics can be saved and attacks those who hold to it. He is an evil heretic and a complete schismatic who, if he recognizes the Vatican II Antipopes and their Bishops, must be in communion with them, which he is not. Perez was mentioned, along with the heretic Dr. Droleskey, in our article entitled “Various heresies from the false traditionalists in The Remnant” in the Beware section of our website. Here are a few excerpts in which we see their profound hypocrisy:
The Heretics Dr. Thomas Droleskey and “Fr.” Patrick Perez
Thomas Droleskey used to be one of those “neo-Catholics” The Remnant now criticizes. Now, after years of admitted blindness, Droleskey has come to the “full side” of “tradition.” After years of obstinate blindness and defense of the apostasy, he is now telling us all about it and what we should think of it. In the recent issue of The Remnant, he writes an article called “Do Not Lay Hands on a Man Rashly: The Problem with Homemade Priests and Do-It-Yourself Bishops.” He is criticizing independent Bishops who are consecrated independently of the John Paul II hierarchy. You see, Droleskey and the heretics at The Remnant want to keep people in union with the apostate, Christ-denying, Council-of-Trent-denying, Council-of-Florence-denying, and Papacy-denying Bishops of the Vatican II sect – EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X!
In his article, Droleskey chastises an independent priest named Fr. Fama because Fr. Fama got ordained and consecrated by an independent Bishop who had Old Catholic roots. When Fr. Fama was ordained and consecrated by this independent Bishop, the Bishop professed to be Roman Catholic, not Old Catholic. (I’m not asserting that Fr. Fama or the Bishop who consecrated him are true Catholics; that is beside the point). The point is that the heretic Droleskey does not hesitate to indicate that Fama is not a Catholic, but a schismatic on the road to hell.
Thomas Droleskey, The Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “One who commits such a schismatic act can be absolved of his excommunicable offense only by the Holy See. 7) The mere fact that one does not intend to commit a schismatic act does not take away the fact of such an act… One can no sooner absolve oneself of the effects of a schismatic act than one can presume to be ‘saved’ by making a profession of faith in his heart and on his lips in the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.”
So, we see that Droleskey is playing hardball with Fr. Fama. Fr. Fama is a schismatic, according to him, even if he didn’t intend to be. He is no more a Catholic than one can be saved by faith alone, according to Droleskey.