the catholic church | catholic churches

Regarding the quote from Pope Eugene IV from the Council of Florence, it appears that this prohibition concerns only those who observe these rites AND place hope in them as necessary for salvation. If in this is not true than all males that have been circumcised have sinned mortally. I think that this quote from Pope Eugene holds if someone believes and participates in these Jewish rites with a belief that they are necessary for salvation. Now, don't get me wrong I am not condoning the participating in these rites at all, for I, believe as you do that it is sinful to do so, even out of curiosity, as the other two quotations state.

TO JESUS THROUGH MARY

Paul

ps Did you see the article in the last Remnant by Solange Hertz titled "Universal Vocation"? It quotes many Saints that say that man was created to be God. One example is from St. Basil of Caesarea, "Man is a creature under orders to become God" Another example from the article is "St. Augustine would sum up their doctrine in a definitive formula: Factus est Deus homo ut homo factus fieret Deus. 'God became man that man may become God'.

While reading this article, I kept reverting back in my mind all the writings of JPII. Any comments on this?

MHFM: Paul, the statement from the Council of Florence (Denz. 712) condemns all who “observe circumcision,” whether or not they place hope in it for salvation. Those who get the foreskin of their children cut solely for health reasons are not “observing circumcision” (the ritual of the Old Law), but are simply having a medical procedure performed for health reasons. Therefore, the phrase “observe circumcision” presupposes that one is doing it to fulfill the Old Law. If one is not doing it to fulfill the Old Law then he is not actually “observing Circumcision.”

Regarding your second question, I’m familiar with the quotes that people bring forward. In fact, I recently read a large book (over 300 pages) by a man who purports to be a “traditional Catholic” and the whole point of the book was to prove that all the baptized are Jesus. But it is heresy to say that any man becomes God, otherwise there would be more than one God. Some of the fathers of the Church said this about baptized Catholics when speaking in exaggerated and wrong terms about the truth that a justified man partakes of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); but they never should have said that man becomes God; they simply should have repeated what 2 Peter 1:4 says, that a justified man partakes of the divine nature.

Pope John XXII condemned the following proposition, among similar other ones: “A good man is the only begotten Son of God.” - Condemned (Denz. 520).

Pope Pius XII condemned the same thing.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 78), June 29, 1943: "But let this be a general and unshaken truth, if they do not wish to wander from sound doctrine and the correct teaching of the Church: namely, every kind of mystic union, by which the faithful in Christ in any way pass beyond the order of created things and wrongly enter among the divine, so that even a single attribute of the eternal Godhead can be predicated of these as their own, is to be entirely rejected."

Writers, such as Solange Hertz, do Catholics a disservice by repeating such exaggerated and non-literal statements from the fathers, who didn’t really believe that baptized Catholics become God, but spoke in exaggerated and spiritual terms about 2 Peter 1:4. If they really believed that a justified Catholic becomes God they would have believed that there is more than one God (and couldn’t have said the Nicene Creed honestly). Further, it must be remembered that the fathers of the Church didn’t write in English. I know that at least some of the quotations that are given from the fathers allegedly asserting that “God became man so that man might become God” actually say in the original “God became man so that man might receive the divinity” (i.e., so that he might partake in the divine nature).

It should also be noted that Antipope John Paul II says that every man is Jesus Christ, not just the baptized; the fathers who spoke in exaggerated and wrong terms about justified persons were only talking about the baptized Catholics. The fact is that Antipope John Paul II’s words prove that he truly and without a doubt preaches that every man is Jesus Christ; the fathers of the Church didn’t hold this, otherwise they would have been apostates, and if they ever said that a justified Catholic man becomes God they were simply dead wrong in speaking in such a way.

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 2 – What Mass do you accept?

Brother Dimond,

What Mass do you accept at the Monastery?

Yours in Christ,

L.H.

MHFM: We accept the Mass of Pope St. Pius V; we don’t approve of the invalid Novus Ordo, of course, and we don’t approve of the use of the 1962 Missal, the Mass of John XXIII – which is the same as the Mass of St. Pius V but with St. Joseph’s name illegally added to the Canon (as well as some other minor changes). We acknowledge that the 1962 Missal is valid, since the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon has no bearing on validity, only legality. We also believe that in this time of crisis one can attend a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained priest who uses the 1962 Missal, as long as the person does not agree with or support the priest. Here is an interesting quote relating to this issue:

“In order to further the liturgical reform that Hebblethwaite [John XXIII’s biographer] claimed John ‘favored,’ the Pope ‘added to the Roman Canon the name of St. Joseph – beati Joseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi – a pious ruse to show that the text was not immutable [unchangeable],’ according to Hebblethwaite.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 177)

In other words, according to John XXIII’s biographer, the whole reason for John XXIII to add St. Joseph’s name to the Canon was to show the Canon was not unchangeable and to pave the way for what later came with Antipope Paul VI – the New Mass.

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 3 – Asking for clarification on Canonization article

To MHFM:

HI,
I am confused here.

Quote from our Canonization article: >>>>The issue is whether a Pope can err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the whole Church and declared in virtue of his apostolic authority. And the answer to this, as St. Thomas, St. Robert and the rest agree, and as I have shown, is a resounding no.
Antipope John Paul II and his counterfeit Vatican II sect and realize that he has no authority to Canonize because he is not the Pope?>>>>

Aren't you contradicting yourselves? In one paragraph you say JPll CAN canonize and then you turn right around at the end and say he has NO authority.
Which is it?
I would appreciate your help in understanding this.....
JMJ,
Cathy

MHFM: Cathy, perhaps the reason that you are confused is because you reference two different sentences from my article which are taken out of context and you don’t quote the sentences in totality. The first sentence from my article which you reference is bolded below in its complete context. It simply says that a true Pope cannot err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the entire Church (such as Canonization).

One of the ways by which Fr. Moderator was able to mislead his readers on this issue was to pervert the nature of the question. In attempting to articulate his heretical argument that Canonizations are not infallible, the reader will notice that Fr. Moderator speaks about how St. Thomas and St. Robert supposedly said that a Pope can err in a decision based upon human testimony. That may be true, but that is irrelevant. The issue is not whether or not a valid Pope can make a mistake on a decision purely based on human testimony; no one disputes this. The issue is whether a Pope can err on a matter of Faith proclaimed to the whole Church and declared in virtue of his apostolic authority. And the answer to this, as St. Thomas, St. Robert and the rest agree, and as I have shown, is a resounding no. And this is why Fr. Moderator could not even bring forward one direct quote from any Saint stating that Canonizations are not infallible; but he effectively and slyly misled his readership by switching the nature of the question and misrepresenting the authorities he claimed to reference.

The point is simply that IF JOHN PAUL II IS THE TRUE POPE, THEN HIS CANONIZATIONS ARE INFALLIBLE, BECAUSE ALL CANONIZATIONS BY TRUE POPES ARE INFALLIBLE. But the SSPX, Fr. Moderator, etc. reject his “Canonizations.” In doing so they reject Papal Infallibility. The only Catholic position is to recognize that John Paul II is not the true Pope (but an Antipope) who possesses no authority to Canonize BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE POPE.

I bring up this issue because it is likely that Antipope John Paul II will soon “Canonize” the apostate Mother Theresa, who exemplified some of the worst religious indifferentism of any of the members of the Vatican II sect.

So, what will the “traditionalists” under Antipope John Paul II do then? Will they actually accept her as a “Saint”? If they are willing to believe that Mother Theresa is a Saint, who promoted and participated in Satanic false religions, then they might as well admit that they think that the Church of Christ = the Church of Antichrist, since they would be honoring as a glorified Saint one who exemplified and believed the doctrine of Antichrist to the fullest. Truly, they might as well accept the Dalai Lama as a Saint or the founder of the Church of Satan.

Or perhaps when Mother Theresa is “Canonized” by Antipope John Paul II the false traditionalists will adopt the same heresy as the SSPX, rightly condemned by the Saints and Doctors as “sin” and “heresy,” which simply rejects the infallibility of “Canonizations”?

Or perhaps they will wake up and realize that Rome has lost the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist (Our Lady of La Salette) and break communion with Antipope John Paul II and his counterfeit Vatican II sect and realize that he has no authority to Canonize because he is not the Pope?

I hope that makes it clear.

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 4 – the Antichrist will be a Jew?

To MHFM:

[Regarding the article, Antipope John Paul II: Final Antichrist Revealed]

Interesting article, but I have one criticism: the antichrist will and must be a Jew, according to Our Lord Himself…

MHFM: Our Lord doesn’t say that the Antichrist will be a Jew. The passage that you are probably referring to (John 5:43), where Our Lord says to the Jews “if another will come in his own name him you will receive” may refer to the Antichrist, but it is not certain. If it does, all it necessarily means is that the Jews will embrace him or receive him. And, in fact, if this passage refers to the Antichrist, then Antipope John Paul II has fulfilled it, because Antipope John Paul II was literally “received” by the Jews in the Synagogue in 1986. But as a Catholic, no one is bound to agree with our opinion that Antipope John Paul II is definitely Final Antichrist, although the evidence is, frankly, overwhelming. All Catholics must condemn him as at least an Antichrist, who is not Catholic and outside the Church. Our articles prove without any doubt that Antipope John Paul II is totally Antichrist and that he preaches that every man is Christ; this is a fact which no one can deny.

Question 5 – Does Pope Eugene IV contradict scripture?

To MHFM: Pope Eugene IV professed that even if a protestant or orthodox sheds
his blood for Christ, he is still damned unless he incorporates himself
with the Roman Catholic Church before his death. My question is " Isnt
this saying contrary to Sacred scripture? Our Lord clearly stated
"Whoever saves his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for My
sake shall gain it. Furthermore, Jesus stressed "Blessed are you when they insult you, revile you and persecute you and speak all kinds of evil against you for My sake, be glad and rejoice during that day for your rewards are very
great in heaven.

Please reply. Thanks and God bless.

MHFM: Pope Eugene IV said that no one, even if he sheds blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained within the bosom and unity of the Church.

Many people shed blood IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, but not for Christ. The Protestants who reject the one true Catholic Faith and Christ's clear teaching on Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), the necessity of Baptism (John 3:5), etc. reject Christ’s truth, so their act of martyrdom is not for Him, but for Christ in name only– if it were truly for Him then they would accept His truth. The same is true of the Orthodox Schismatics, who reject Christ’s clear teaching on the Papacy (Mt. 16:18-20) - so their act of martyrdom will profit them nothing. The same is also true of all “Catholics” who obstinately adhere to heresy, but would pretend to shed their blood for Christ. One example would be the “priests” and nuns of Mother Angelica’s EWTN. They accept non-Christian, false religions as good and even “great” – and therefore reject Christ – yet some of them would probably go to death for the name of Christ if they had to. Hence, they would still not be saved because they are not Catholic, unless they amend and accept the true Faith beforehand.

So, Pope Eugene IV's statement does not contradict Scripture.

Question 6 – Divisions among traditionalists?

To MHFM: I have learned much from your research. I was raised PreVat. II and attended 16 years of preVat. II education (including Thomistic theology) and must admit I was royally duped. But I do have the experience of being raised in the Roman Catholic Church. Now I watch the infighting between you… SSPX, CMRI, CFN, the Remnant, etc. and I am saddened that the Traditional Catholics can't come to the same truths - there are only the same truths in the Roman Catholic Church. How can you all be right??? If you all would just stick to the infallible teachings of the Popes from the Chair of St. Peter - the authority of Holy Mother Church - and Holy Scripture, we wouldn't be in this mess! It's taken me three years of much reading and research to reaquaint myself with the true Faith - after being so involved in the Conciliar Church for 35 years as well as the Charasmatic Renewal - had to get my Catholic thinking back! I now feel ready to go to family, friends, priests in the Conciliar Church with this Truth, but if and when they would decide to go Traditional, where do I send them. They'll find out, like I have, that there is all this infighting, and it surely won't be easy for them to find the Truth when there is so much disagreement. Perhaps we all need to stop and pray and let God be God and lead us. None of us has all the Truth! (i.e., I've heard others criticize your stance on LaSalette and Fatima. the parts of each that haven't been approved by the Church, i.e. Tuy) God continue to bless you and your work. You have done a phenomenal job for Our Lord.

MHFM: Thank you for your interest. The unfortunate divisions among those who profess to be traditional Catholics arise, simply, because those people you described above reject Catholic dogmatic teaching in one or more areas. So division from them in these areas of Faith is not desirable, but it is necessary, simply because they don’t accept the truth in totality. If all “traditionalists” would accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church without compromise, then there would be no division among traditionalists. But since this is not the case, there must be division from those who deny the truth, as there can be no unity with heresy. As Our Lord says, I came to not to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword – to divide (Matthew 10:34-37).

Question 7- The death of John Paul I and the Papal Tiara?

To MHFM: Do you think Pope John Paul I was murdered or died naturally?

And why is the papal tiara no longer worn?

Christopher

Australia

MHFM: We think that John Paul I was probably murdered. We think this because of the conflicting reports that the Vatican has issued surrounding his death. But just because he was probably murdered does not mean that he was a good man or even a valid Pope, of course. It is a fact that John Paul I was a heretic who embraced the religious indifferentism of Vatican II and even petitioned for approval of the birth control pill. The Vatican II Antipopes don’t wear the Papal Tiara as a symbolic way to show the enemies of the Church that they are infiltrators and on their side. Paul VI’s giving away of the Tiara (a picture of which can be seen in our photo gallery) was an obvious message to the world that he was a Satanic agent trying to give away the house, which is why he abolished the oath against Modernism, the profession of Faith of Trent, the Index of Forbidden books, changed the Mass, etc., etc., etc.

Question 8- The validity of homosexual ordination?

Brother Peter or Brother Michael:

I have a question that will probably be coming up too often among the laity with the times we are in:

1) Suppose a priest has been validly ordained, but later became a homosexual after his ordination, does this automatically excommunicate him: no longer a priest? Or is he still a valid priest? Please explain.

2) Suppose a priest has been validly ordained and at the same time knew he was homosexual (entered the seminary and ordination with full knowledge and intention he is homosexual). What does this incur if a) he practices his sexual preferences, or b) practices "chastity"/celibacy and remains a homosexual?

Thank you and maybe you could consider briefly addressing this on your website as it has come to my attention that a lot of people are confused about this.

In Christ, Christine

MHFM: Christine, the fact that a priest is a homosexual would have nothing to do with the validity of his ordination. Such a priest would be ordained validly, but would receive the Sacrament in a state of mortal sin. And once ordained validly he always remains a priest, even if he becomes a homosexual.

Sincerely in Christ,

MHFM

Question 9- Can women be heretics?

To MHFM: Hi, I am a Sedevacantist and my husband is a defender of the SSPX. He refuses to look rationally at the facts I present to him, and dismisses me by saying that women are too emotional and aren’t capable of understanding any of these things, and that this is why no women have ever been condemned as heretics – they aren’t capable of being heretics and so aren’t capable of understanding the truth on these issues . Is this true?

MHFM: Your husband is completely wrong. The Church has always taught that any woman who rejects Church teaching is a heretic. In fact, here is Pope Clement V denouncing and condemning as heretical a sect of women:

Pope Clement V 1311-1312: “We entertain in our heart a deep longing that the Catholic faith prosper in our time and that the perverseness of heresy be rooted out of Christian soil. We have therefore heard with great displeasure that an abominable sect of wicked men, commonly called Beghards, and of faithless women, commonly called Beguines, has sprung up in the realm of Germany. This sect, planted by the sower of evil deeds, holds and asserts in its sacrilegious and perverse doctrine the following errors…”(Decree # 28, Council of Vienne)

Question 10- What is material heresy?

To MHFM: please can you tell me: 1-what is a material heretic- i saw it on your website and i am not sure what it is exactly-it's heresy but what is the exact definition and please give and example so i can under- stand it-and what is the history of this term? i tried finding it on the computer's old catholic terms dictionary and i couldn't find it listed-maybe i just wasn't doing the search correctly-but i did find heresy in it-but not material heretic- Sincerely, Maureen

MHFM: Maureen, the whole issue of "material heresy" is explained in the article on our website called, "Why John Paul II Cannot be the Pope - a comprehensive presentation." There is a whole section on it. We would recommend that you look at it.

Question 11- Fatima Prayer and Universal Salvation?

Dear Brothers, do you think the Fatima Prayer after the decades of the Rosary expresses a sentiment of universal salvation in it?

Thank you and God bless.

Barbara

MHFM: Barbara, I don’t believe it does. The prayer [O my Jesus, pardon us and save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls into heaven especially those most in need of thy mercy] is simply asking God to lead all souls to heaven; it is not asserting that all souls will make it. God wishes for all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), even though only just a few find it (Mt. 7:13; Luke 13:24).

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 12- Chaput of Denver and where to go from here?

Dear Brother Dimond,

I have just been reading your News and Commentary articles, some of them

and all the headlines. I am sick at heart. Where do we go from here, I

am not in favor of any of it, and feel frankly betrayed by the hierarchy.

I need to find a Latin Rite church and try to break away from the Novus

Ordo Rite Mass. Although our priest is from the old school, I feel he is

doing the best he can and our Archbishop Chaput is quite conservative and

for that I am thankful.

I just had to voice my concern.

Catherine

MHFM: Catherine, you need to get our 7 video or dvd special for only $15.00, which includes 3 very important tapes which demonstrate the reality of the situation with the Novus Ordo sect. Also, please call us at 585-567-4433 and we would be happy to discuss the issue of where you should go from here. Also, if your “priest” accepts Vatican II or the New Mass then he is not doing the best he can.

Regarding your thought that Chaput of Denver is a conservative; you should click on the link below.

Denver Apostate “Archbishop” Charles Chaput won’t deny “Communion” to pro-aborts

Just read the second paragraph of this article. Chaput is considered to be one of the most conservative (if not the most conservative) Novus Ordo “Bishop” in the country. But he won’t even deny pro-abortion politicians “Communion,” but he didn’t rule it out! He is a joke. He is a complete phony who stands for nothing. He also surely holds that position of John Paul II and official Vatican documents (such as the Balamand Statement) that Eastern Orthodox should not be converted to the Catholic Faith. Thus, Chaput is an apostate.

Question 13- On young people leaving home?

Dear Bros,

What is the Traditional Catholic teaching on young women leaving their household to live on their own. My 20 year old was contemplating the idea and I having been raised Mexican Catholic was taught it was wrong and disgraceful for a woman to move out on her own. So I conveyed that to her and I had her talk to a priest from the CMRI whom I expected to echo my wishes to her. Instead he "recommended" she not leave but assured her there was no sin in it.

So I asked an Old Catholic priest I met and he said it was a sin because the 4th Commandment is broken and a women should be under the care of a man (her father, husband, or in a convent). I myself believe it is a grievous sin to defy one's parents' wishes to simply live independently (that's how I was brought up). Who is correct here?

No hurry but please do respond. Thank you and God bless.

M. M.

MHFM: M., there is nothing which precludes a woman over 18 from choosing to leave home and live on her own, provided she is planning to adhere to the Catholic Faith and live her life accordingly. But if she is moving out simply in the hope of being able to live a worldly or non-Catholic lifestyle then obviously she is not justified in her actions. So, to put it simply: there is nothing wrong with moving out; what matters is how she is planning on living her life when she moves out.

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 14- When did the New Rite of Ordination come in?

Dear Brothers,

In a discussion I had lately someone told me that the new ordinal for priests that started sometime around 1968 was invalid. Can this be true. I have no way to look this up myself.I hope I can rely on you to give me a hand with this information. Thank you!!

Yours Truly, Matt

MHFM: Matt, the New Rite of Ordination was signed on June 18, 1968. It took effect on April 1, 1969. We are going to be posting an article on this very soon.

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 15- Concerning John Paul II’s teaching on man

Bro. Michael, isn't this only reiterating what Jesus said about what we did to the least of them we did to Him? Isn't Jesus telling us here to see Him even in the least of them?

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Oct. 1, 1999: “He, Emmanuel, God-with-us, was crucified in the concentration camps and the gulags; he knew affliction under bombardment in the trenches; he suffered wherever the inalienable dignity of man, of every human being, was humiliated, oppressed and violated.”(70)

God bless you, Midgie

MHFM: No, Midgie. First of all, in Matthew 25, Jesus is telling the world that we must love our neighbors as ourselves, and therefore to treat your neighbor uncharitably is equivalent to treating Jesus uncharitably, because Jesus was a human (besides being God) and therefore Jesus was also our neighbor. But Jesus is not saying that each man is Jesus in Matthew 25. John Paul II, however, is clearly saying that each man is Jesus, which is why he defines the Gospel as the deep amazement at man.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10), March 4, 1979: “IN REALITY, THE NAME FOR THAT DEEP AMAZEMENT AT MAN’S WORTH AND DIGNITY IS THE GOSPEL, THAT IS TO SAY: THE GOOD NEWS. IT IS ALSO CALLED CHRISTIANITY.”(9)

It is also why he says the following about Christmas, the way of the Lord, etc.

Antipope John Paul II, Urbi et Orbi, Dec. 25, 1978: “I am addressing this message to every human being, to man in his humanity. Christmas is the feast of man.”

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 10, 1989: “… make straight the way of the Lord and of man, WHICH is the path of the Church.”

Remember, this is a quote from John 1:23, where John the Baptist tells us to make straight the way of the Lord. Antipope John Paul II says make straight the way of the Lord and of man because he holds that the two are the same, as our article proves in detail.

Antipope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (# 30), March 25, 1995: “The deepest and most original meaning of this meditation on what revelation tells us ABOUT HUMAN LIFE was taken up by the Apostle John in the opening words of his First Letter: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard… concerning the Word of life – the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us …”

Remember, this is the passage in 1 John 1 where St. John describes seeing Jesus Christ. Antipope John Paul II tells us that St. John saw human life – man. Nothing could more clearly teach that man is Jesus Christ.

Antipope John Paul II, Speech in the Colosseum, April 10, 1998: “As we contemplate Christ dead on the Cross, our thoughts turn to the countless injustices and sufferings which prolong his passion in every part of the world. I think of the places where man is insulted…”

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, March 30, 1982: “Looking at himself, man discovers also – as Christ says in the dialogue with the Pharisees – what is ‘from below’ and what is ‘from above.’ Man discovers within himself (this is a constant experience) the man ‘from below’ and the man ‘from above’ not two men, but almost two dimensions of the same man, the man that is each one of us: of you, he, she.”

Remember, John Paul II is quoting John 8:23, where Jesus says that He is the one from above. Antipope John Paul II tells us that man is the one from above – Jesus.

Antipope John Paul II, Address to Missionaries of Precious Blood, September 14, 2001: “And at the moment of Easter this joy came to its fullness as the light of divine glory shone on the face of the Risen Lord, whose wounds shine forever like the Sun. This is the truth of who you are, dear Brothers…”

There are many other passages which could be brought forward, but the article Antipope John Paul II: Final Antichrist Revealed proves the point thoroughly. And because he holds that each man became Jesus in the Incarnation is the very reason John Paul II has said hundreds of times that the Son of God united Himself with everyone in the Incarnation.

Sincerely,

MHFM

Question 16- Did any Popes condemn Pentecostalism?

MHFM: Do you if any Popes condemned Pentecostalism? My friends and I were involved in the Catholic NO Charasmatic movement for 25 years - my daughter graduated from Steubenville U. Now that I'm back in the Traditional Roman Catholic Church, I'd like to share what the Church has taught about this movement. Thanks for any info!

MHFM: I’m not aware of any Popes who condemned it because it is a new phenomenon. But it is not traditional, it is ecumenical (involvement with Protestants and the Novus Ordo), so it must be rejected on that basis alone. Further, it involves things to which Catholics should naturally hold an aversion and recognize as not being Catholic and evil – e.g., speaking in gibberish, some even barking like dogs, and some even oinking like pigs. If your daughter is convinced of the Church’s traditional teaching on Outside the Church There is NO Salvation (please get our new book on this topic), and if she denounces all heretics, as well as the heresies of the Vatican II, John Paul II, etc., then she will naturally see that the Pentecostal movement is incompatible with the Traditional Catholic Faith.

Question 17- Does the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney condemn you?

Greetings, Br. Dimond

I have read one of your discussions on the baptism of desire, and I was wondering why you didn't broach the topic of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of Fr. Feynan's position on the baptism of desire. I have thought of three possibilities, and I would be grateful if you kindly comment.

1. Perhaps you were unaware of it? In that case, it stands to reason that it would be very helpful if you find the text of the condemnation and study it, and perhaps you might let me know what you think of it.

2. Perhaps you are of the opinion that it was not an official condemnation that is binding on faith? If that is the case, I would appreciate if you would explain why you think so.

3. Perhaps you are of the opinion that the condemnation applied to Fr. Feynan's position, but you are also of the opinion that your position is sufficiently different from Fr. Feynan's position, so that the condemnation wouldn't apply to your opinion. If that is the case, I would appreciate a demonstration of the differences and why you think they save your position from falling under the condemnation.

I hope that in the interest of finding and proclaiming the truth on matters of Catholic Faith, you will eventually (hopefully soon!) find the time to answer me.

Thank you very much. May God bless you,

P.B.

MHFM: P., you are referring to Fr. Feeney, not Fr. Feynan. I actually just finished a new book that is 300 pages on this topic. It is now available for $8.00. It covers the issue in-depth, and all aspects of the Fr. Feeney case in-depth. You should get it and read it; it answers your questions in this regard.

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

Brother Peter, Yikes! 300 pages? I found it difficult to read the 4-page bulletin!

Just for now, in a two-liner, would you mind telling me if you consider the condemnation not to apply to your case because of differences between your position and Fr. Feeney's? Or not to apply in the first place to Fr. Feeney or anyone else because it wouldn't have been an infallible act of magisterium? I understand that if I want to know the reasons for your opinion that I would have to refer to your in-depth study or perhaps to future bulletins that might summarize it. Thanks for adding me to your email list. If you don't mind, I will likely have more questions for you; hopefully, they won't be so involved or require such a lengthy reply! Regards and may God bless you,

P.B.

MHFM: P., the parts of the book dealing with the Fr. Feeney case are only about 40 pages; you should purchase it and read it. The order form will be up on our site soon. The Magisterium did not condemn Fr. Feeney; a letter from two heretical Cardinals to one Bishop attempted to – a letter which wasn’t even published in the Acts of the Apostolic See. Fr. Feeney was preaching defined Catholic dogma; the Magisterium could never condemn him for that without contradicting itself.

Do you accept the defined dogma that all who die without the Catholic Faith are lost eternally?

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.”

Sincerely,

Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

[P. B. did not respond to this question. I hope that it wasn’t because he does not believe in this dogma, but that may be the case. Perhaps he just wanted to use the little that he had heard about the Fr. Feeney case to justify his belief in salvation outside the Church. I hope not, but that is almost always the case with “traditionalists” who bring up the issue. We post this exchange without the man’s full name only to show people how people use their own perverted and inaccurate idea of what the Fr. Feeney case was about to justify their denial of this dogma. This man didn’t even know Fr. Feeney’s name, but was presumably using it to justify his belief which was at odds with Catholic dogma.]

MHFM Comment on Dr. Drolesky and the Apostasy of the Vatican II sect

In a May 8 article called “The Consecration Has Been Done?,” Dr. Thomas Drolesky discusses the recent statement by the Executive Secretary of the Russian Conference of Catholic Bishops Igor Kovalevsky. Kovalevsky, as documented in our Heresy of the Week Achive for 5/14/04, stated that the “Holy See” has officially instructed that the Orthodox are not to be converted to Catholicism. Dr. Drolesky, who writes for Catholic Family News and The Remnant, admits that this is apostasy.

Dr. Drolesky, The Consecration Has Been Done, May 9: “Let's be brutally frank: to assert that the Catholic Church is not interested in the conversion of souls from Orthodoxy to Catholicism is to assert a belief that is alien to Catholic truth and representative of the sort of syncretist, pan-Christianity specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos in 1928…. Please tell me how not seeking the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith is not apostasy… the statement of the executive secretary of the Catholic bishops' conference in Russia proves that the Vatican has no interest--and I mean no interest--in the conversion of Russia whatsoever.” (christorchaos.com)

That’s right, Dr. Drolesky, it is apostasy! So why do you continue to hold communion with and recognize these apostates as Catholics? Why do you continue to say that Catholics should join up with these apostates? In admitting that the above is apostasy, you have been more honest than your cohorts at The Remnant and Catholic Family News, who deny that this is apostasy, but if you obstinately remain in communion with these men then you too are an apostate. So please, Dr. Drolesky, for your own soul and the Catholic Faith, acknowledge that John Paul II and his Bishops who hold that we should not convert the Eastern Orthodox are apostates who are outside the Catholic Church and with whom no one can hold communion. Acknowledge that the men who teach such things cannot be the representatives of the Catholic Church. Anyone who denies this or holds communion with men who say that Russia should not be converted to Catholicism simply denies Our Lord and the Papacy.