Questions,
Answers and Comments
*
If you are trying to print out only certain pages of this or any other
document, use the Print-preview option under the File drop down option on the
upper left side of your computer. This will
allow you to print only those pages you want to print.* We
obviously don’t publish all of the questions we receive, but only those few
that we can post and to which we have the time to formulate a “post-worthy”
response.
Some Q &A’s from Summer 2004
1- What is your comment
about the book Fatima in Twilight?
2- What does being born
again mean and what do I have to do to be saved?
3- Why don’t we
“understand” that non-Catholics can be saved through baptism of desire?
5- Can one attend the
funerals or weddings of Protestants or members of the Novus Ordo?
6- Is John Paul II’s Cross
a Satanic Symbol?
7- What is your
understanding of Romans 2:14-16?
8- Have you heard that
John Paul II gave “Communion” to Tony Blair?
9- Is the National
Cathedral in Washington, D.C. “Catholic”?
10- Can one support the
building fund of the SSPX, etc.?
11- Preparing for the Three
Days of Darkness and some good morning prayers?
12- Is your community affiliated with
Rome and the “Benedictine” Order under John Paul II?
13- What does Jesus mean by “the
Kingdom of God is within you.”
14- What about sanctification prior to
Baptism?
15- Concerning heretical Traditional
Priests, the SSPV and salvation.
16- Can one gain a Plenary Indulgence
if there is no Pope?
17- Where is the Church in the world
today?
18- What do you think of Anne Catherine Emmerich?
19- What did you think of Malachi Martin?
20- The CMRI does not have valid priests?
21 – Am I going to lose my soul going to the Novus Ordo?
22 – What about “material/formal pope sedevacantism”
23– Can a Catholic pray for the deceased Fr. Wickens?
24- Aren’t you misusing the term apostate?
Question
1 – What is your comment about the book
Dear Bro. Dimond, what is your comment on the book
Mary A.
MHFM:
Regarding the book Fatima in Twilight,
the description of the events of
For
instance, the author unhesitatingly accepts this “Sister Lucia” as the real
one, when anyone who saw the 2000 “Beatification” ceremonies of Jacinta and
Francisco by Antipope John Paul II (as we did), could see for himself that this
“Sister Lucia” must be an imposter, for she is fully in favor of John Paul II
and the version of the Third Secret released by John Paul II. When “Cardinal” Sodano announced at the
“Beatification” ceremony that the Third Secret deals with the assassination
attempt against John Paul II, this “Sister Lucia” was waving enthusiastically
with approval, confirming without a doubt that she agrees! Thus, it is a fact, clear to anyone who saw
this, that this “Sister Lucia” agrees with the
And
this fact (her behavior at the 2000 “Beatifications” of Jacinta and Francisco)
blows away the entire Nicholas Gruner myth, which is very deceptive and
misleading – that this imposter is actually the real “Sister Lucia” and that
she really holds that the Consecration of Russia has not been done, but that
she just isn’t allowed to speak. In
fact, in Fatima in Twilight, the
author acknowledges “Sister Lucia’s” exuberant approval of John Paul II and the
Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight,
p. 327: “In fact, her [Sister Lucia’s]
exuberance at
Behold
the death-blow to the false traditionalist explanation of
Further,
the reason that this “Sister Lucia” isn’t allowed to speak freely is because
the
There
are many notes and thoughts that we had about this book, which perhaps we can
expand upon more at a later date. But
one example of the problems occurs with regard to Antipope John XXIII. On page 180, the author says:
“Pope John was the Pope who
single-handedly rehabilitated Communism, discredited Fatima, and used deceitful
methods to bury the Third Secret…In
light of
Yet,
on page 161, the author says: “None of
this speculation – and that is what it is – is intended to disparage Pope John.
That he was a goodhearted man is beyond
dispute.”
Okay,
so one can single-handedly rehabilitate Communism, discredit the Message of
Fatima, bury the Third Secret, be the “Pope” of the Apostasy, and have a good
heart? This is simply the same kind of
mélange [mixture] of truth with error, so characteristic of Nicholas Gruner and
those who advance a similar position on
The
book also proves again that John Paul II is a total apostate and an enemy of
“And it is because I have the courage to state the truth that I
speak. And I affirm, before God who will
judge me, that never has any Pope, until
our own day, uttered so great a lie as that of His Holiness John Paul II
concerning the Third Secret of
This
man is absolutely correct, and hopefully he will come to realize the truth that
John Paul II is not the Pope, but a non-Catholic apostate. But why don’t you hear this from the mouths
of the false traditionalists? Why do
them blame Sodano, Ratzinger, et al. and not the real enemy of Fatima –
Antipope John Paul II. It is because it
is easy to attack the others and accuse them of lying, but it is not as popular
for them to tell the blatantly obvious truth, that Elichar Alesne can see so
clearly, that John Paul II is lying to the entire world about
Fatima in Twilight is also filled with proof that John Paul II is a
wicked apostate, a Communist supporter, an adherent of universal salvation and
that all religions are true, etc. Yet,
after quoting something conservative that John Paul II said at the May 2000
“Beatifications, ” the author makes a statement such as this:
This is what I call a puke page, because it really makes one want to
puke.
Question 2 – What does being born again mean and what do I
do to be saved?
Dear sirs,
I read my
Bible but it is some times hard to know certain meanings. I hear people talke about saved and born
again, to get to heaven. How do I get to
heaven or like born again or saved. If
you can tell me I would be greatly thankful.
TOMMY…
MHFM: Tommy, the
meaning of Jesus about the necessity to be born again is found in John
3:5. He says, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy
Ghost he cannot enter into the
But getting baptized is not the only thing one must
do to be saved. One must belong to the one Church Christ established (the
Catholic Church), for he who refuses to hear the Church is like
the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). We can tell you in more detail
what you must do to belong to this Church if you contact us.
To be
saved one must also die in the state of grace (free from all grave sin).
That can only be accomplished by a Catholic who has a strong prayer life,
including devotion to the Mother of God, who avoids the near occasions of sin,
who makes saving his soul the number 1 priority, etc.
We
have a seven video or dvd special which you can get for $15.00 which includes a
very important video on this subject, called Death and the Journey into Hell.
Jesus also taught the necessity of confessing sins
to a priest (John 20:23), as well as many other things. All grave
sins that one has committed must be confessed to a validly ordained
Catholic priest. One must accept the fullness of the Faith Christ
established (the Catholic Faith) if one is going to be saved. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question 3 – Why don’t we understand that non-Catholics can
be saved through “baptism of desire”?
To Bro.
Diamond,
I
really hate to tell you this but you might be the "heretic", and
there is, as the Catholic Church does in fact teach, salvation through
baptism of desire. You don’t get it do you? These people who you carelessly
accuse of heresy mean to say that it is through and because of the Catholic
Church that non catholics are saved. Not through or by the merits of their false
religion, but by the grace of God, who dispenses His grace at His own
pleasure not yours.
You should
really calm down a little so people will take you seriously. You do have
excellent responses to the
Godspeed and Good luck,
E. K.
MHFM: Sorry, but that is not what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that all
who are saved are saved "through" or "by” the Catholic
Church. It teaches that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church,
that no one is saved without the Catholic Faith, and that no one is saved
in a non-Catholic religion. You obstinately reject this dogma and
therefore are not a Catholic. Your problem is not with us, but with the
dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on salvation which you cannot accept.
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that
‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who
contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any
religion whatever. They should consider
the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against
Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather
with Him. Therefore, ‘without
a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith
whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves
and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that
even heretics may attain eternal life.”
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.”
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex
cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be
saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
-Bro. Peter Dimond
[Notice
again how this heretic’s concern for baptism of desire is not because he
believes that catechumens, that is, those who desire baptism, can be
saved. Not at all. He wants baptism of desire to be true so badly
because he can’t accept the Church’s dogma that all who die as non-Catholics
are lost. He believes that souls can be
saved in “false religions.” This is just
another example which corroborates what I stated in the book, that for 99% of
those who believe in baptism of desire, it means salvation for
non-Catholics/salvation outside the Church.]
Hi,
I have a question which you may have answered or addressed somewhere else so I apologize
if it is a repeat.
What is your opinion based on church teachings, regarding the baptism of
infants into the Vatican II sect? Specifically, if these babies were to
die what are we to think about their eternity? They are being
baptized into an anti-christ church using a changed sacrament which I assume
makes it invalid. They are innocent babies, but without baptism am I
right in saying they cannot go to heaven? Are they "marked” somehow
by Satan as his since they are baptized into his church? I was just
pondering this. This is a long question--sorry.
I really respect and appreciate all of the information/research you are making
available. Your take on this would be much appreciated. It is a
tragedy that innocent kids are being brought into that false church. It
breaks my heart.
Thank you so much,
Rene
MHFM: Rene, the Church teaches that anyone can baptize,
provided he uses the matter and form and intends to do what the Church does -
i.e., pronounce the words and pour the water.
So, as long as water is used, and the infant child
of Novus Ordo parents is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost, the baptism would be valid and those
infants would therefore be validly baptized into the Catholic
Church and would go to heaven if they died in infancy, just like the
baptized infants of Protestant families who die in infancy would also go
straight to heaven. The baptized infants who have
Protestant or Novus Ordo parents don't become heretics until they knowingly
embrace the Protestant or Novus Ordo heresy.
Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I, 1254:
"Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a
doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. But
the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of
adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any
satisfaction for sin itself, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland."
(Denz. 457)
Being below the age of reason, it is not possible
for baptized infants to be heretics. So, as long as they are below the
age of reason, they are members of the Catholic Church, despite belonging to a
heretical family.
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question 5 – Can one attend the funerals or weddings of
Protestants or members of the Novus Ordo?
Dear
Brother Michael and Peter,
Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!! Thank you for all of the
material you have sent us. My wife and I are going through it, albeit
slowly but surely. It's laying a very important foundation for our
faith. For this I thank you.
We are new to traditional Catholicism and I have one question which I need to
ask you. Are we allowed to attend (not participate) in any protestant
service or novus ordo mass for special occasions? (I.E. Weddings or
funerals of family members)
The Peace
of Christ be with you, Lee F.
MHFM: Lee, the
answer is no, one is not allowed to
attend Protestant services or the Novus Ordo for any reason, not for funerals,
weddings, etc.
Question 6 – Is John Paul II’s cross a satanic symbol?
Hello
I have a question regarding John
Paul's bent cross that he carries.
I heard that it was a satanic
symbol. Appreciate your ministry and
God Bless You, Sincerely Doris
MHFM:
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question 7 – What is your understanding of Romans 2:14-16
What is your understanding of Rom
2:14-16 i did not find anything on these infallible text of Scripture in your
latest book "Outside the Catholic Church there is Absolutely No
Salvation" maybe i missed it. I agree though session 6 chapter
IV is most likely as you say in your book and can't be used as a source text
for baptism of desire.
thanks Dusty
MHFM: Dusty, Romans 2:14-16 is reiterating the truth
that the natural law is written on the heart of all men, so that all men know
that certain things are against God’s law and that certain things are in
accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.
As the Haydock Bible and Commentary
correctly explains about this verse,
“these men
are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the
existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful:
they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to
relieve the poor, honoring their parents, etc. not that these actions,
morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them
deserve a supernatural reward in the kingdom of heaven; but God, out of His
infinite mercy, will give them some supernatural graces” which if they continue to cooperate with they will get more graces and
eventually be exposed to the Catholic Faith, which they must have to be saved.
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question 8 – Have you heard that John Paul II gave
“Communion” to Tony Blair
I recently heard that JPII gave communion
to Tony Blair. Have you heard about it? Another example why Canon 844 is an
evil canon!
steve
MHFM: Yes, we heard about. He’s quite an apostate, that’s for sure.
Question 9
– Is the National Cathedral in
Dear Brothers Michael & Peter,
In your News and Commentary section,
what the heck was the New Ritual in the Novus Ordo? Was that supposed to
represent the repression of women in the Catholic Church?
Also,
is the National Cathedral in
Sincerely,
Rose
MHFM: We’re not
sure what that ritual in the Novus Ordo was, but it was something bizarre and
evil. The “National Cathedral” in
Question 10 – Can one support the building fund of the SSPX,
etc.?
Dear Brother Michael;
First, I want to say hello… Regardless where I go to Mass I meet people that
know of you and your work and always find information with your name on it in
their information bins. There is a married couple at the chapel I attend presently
that know your work very well and I believe the woman has spent a great deal of
time talking with you in the past on the telephone….
I have several questions and issues that I've been meaning for months to ask
you about. They are below and I would be most appreciative if you would please
send your answers or comments when you have time.
Questions/Issues
1. I do not support the traditional priest at the chapel I go to by putting
money in the collection plate. However, I do put money into the collection
plate for the Building Fund. Is this ok?
2. The congregation says the rosary before
B. R.
MHFM: B., good to hear from you. The answer to
your first question is no, you absolutely cannot donate any money to the SSPX
for any reason, including the building fund, since they are a
heretical and schismatic group.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:
"Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who
receive, defend, or support heretics."
The answer to your second question is that you
should not pray the Rosary with the people at that church, since they are
praying for the Antipope.
Sincerely,
MHFM
Could you please comment
on this prophecy called "The Three Days of Darkness" that I have
found on many traditional Catholic internet prophecy sites. They are saying
this is from Our Lady, and that we must have blessed candles handy, and that
75% of the human race will be destroyed when the three days are over.
Could you please comment on the end time prophecies. It is my understanding
that there are 5, the third being the Great Apostasy that we are experiencing
now. What follows it, if anything, where are we at, what can we expect next
etc. Very confusing stuff.
What are the recommended prayers a good lay person should say in the morning
and evening.
MHFM: Many of the messages about preparing for the Three
Days of Darkness come from some of the modern false apparitions, if I recall
correctly. I believe that the devil, via many of these false apparitions,
wants to convince everyone to prepare for a temporal chastisement, when the
spiritual chastisement has already befallen them, and the faith has been ripped
away from them, and they are attending a false Mass, and following a
non-Catholic sect. If Three Days of Darkness do occur, the only
preparation that a Catholic needs to make is to be in the state of grace
and hold the fullness of the Faith without compromise.
The answer to your next question is that we are
definitely in the Great Apostasy now, the time just preceding the Second Coming
of Christ.
The answer to your question about morning prayers
is that, after the morning offering, it is good to say the following prayer to
the Holy Trinity - the prayer given at
"Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I adore thee
profoundly, and I offer You the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of
Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the earth, in reparation for
the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference with which He Himself is
offended. And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart and of
the immaculate heart of Mary, I beg of You the conversion of poor
sinners."
After that, some of the following prayers to the
Virgin are very good to say:
Sub Tuum Praesidium
We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God! despise not our petitions
in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers, O ever glorious and
blessed Virgin.
Dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary
My Queen, my Mother. I give myself entirely to thee; and to show
my devotion to thee, I consecrate to thee this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth,
my heart, my whole being, without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I
am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession.
Short Prayers to the Virgin
Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.
My Mother, preserve me this day from mortal sin.
Mother of love, of sorrow, and of mercy, pray for
us.
My mother, my trust.
Mary, Virgin Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me.
In thy conception, O Virgin Mary, thou wast
immaculate, pray for us to the Father, whose Son Jesus Christ conceived of the
Holy Ghost thou didst bring forth.
To thee, O Virgin Mother, who wast never defiled
with the slightest stain of original or actual sin, I commend and entrust the
purity of my heart.
O
Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.
Question 12- Is your community affiliated with
To Whom It May Concern:
Is your community affiliated with
Please advise on this. Thank
you.
Kind Regards,
J.F. G.
MHFM: No, our
community is not affiliated with Antipope John Paul II or the “Benedictine”
order under him, simply because they are not real Catholics as they do not
accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on many issues, such as, for instance,
the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church – to name just
a few. They can claim to be Catholic
just as John Kerry does, and hold the buildings of the Church, but they are no
more Catholic than he is.
Question 13- What does Jesus mean by “the
Dear Brothers Michael & Peter,
My father was raised as a Presbyterian. He has used
the line, "The Kingdom of God is within you", using that as an excuse
for not having to go to church on Sunday. Or having to really follow any
organized religious beliefs. Since he does not really follow any religious
principles, except what may suit his needs or desires. How should I explain to
him what Jesus meant by that statement? And that the Catholic Church was the
only Christian church that was founded by Christ Himself, which my father
refutes?
Yours in Christ,
Scott K.
MHFM: Scott,
Jesus says this in response to a question about when the
Regarding
your second question, I would first share with a Protestant the clear teaching
of Christ and the New Testament on the Necessity of Baptism (John 3:5; Mark
16:16, etc.), the Institution of the Papacy (Mt. 16), the Institution of
Confession (John 20:23) and the Eucharist (John 6), and the condemnation of the
idea of faith alone (James 2:24), to begin with. If they cannot accept these things, then they
are simply not honest people.
Question 14- What about sanctification prior to Baptism?
Brothers
Dimond,
First of
all, congratulations to Peter for a brilliant defense of our Catholic Faith with
regard to the absolute necessity of water baptism and for exposing, once again,
the manifest errors of Bishop McKenna and of those “traditionalists” who hold
to the same errors. I also look forward
to your new book on EENS which I will be ordering along with some tapes…
However, I wonder if you have considered the possibility of sanctification
prior to water baptism.
Michael
MHFM: We’re glad that you liked the article. Sanctification from sin is not possible
without water baptism. You may be referring
to the position of the
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.” (Denz. 468-469)
But all of these points are expanded upon in detail in the book.
Question 15- Concerning heretical Traditional Priests, the SSPV and
salvation.
According
to you folks at Most Holy Family Monastery there are hardly any Traditional
Priests that we can trust. You knocked down the SSPV, SSPX ,Independent priests
etc.
Who's left , YOU ? You accuse the SSPV priests of believing in Universal
Salvation!
That's strange, in over fifteen years
of listening to sermons from the SSPV Priests, I have never heard them indorse Universal
Salvation. So you play the diabolical game of attacking the person or persons
to achieve an effect of neutralizing. And by time the true story gets out , You
achieve the damages planned. The SSPV Priests have always given sermons on the
doctrine " Outside the Church There Is No Salvation," and believe in
that doctrine. Because if they didn't I would have been the first to stay away
from any priest who believes differently. Show me documented proff of your
alligations . Like a signed statement from any of the SSPV Priests saying
they believe in Universal Salvation. Until then you are no better
then Commie agents trying to disrupt the Traditional Catholic unity.
And frighten Trad. Catholics away from the
A. A.
MHFM: First of all, you need to get your facts
straight. We never said that the SSPV
priests believe in universal salvation.
We said that they believe that non-Catholics can be saved without the
Catholic Faith. This is not a question,
this is simply a fact! They also believe
that it’s possible for non-Catholics to
be saved in any religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Protestantism,
Islam, etc. They hold the same
heresy as Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, who taught that souls can be saved in any
religion.
Bishop
Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies,
page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than
the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
Notice the etc.
The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”! Bishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which
people can be saved, because there is not one religion about which he
could tell you that all those who die as members of it are definitely lost
without a doubt. That souls can be saved in these religions is the belief of
the SSPV and the CMRI, not just the SSPX.
Almost all of the traditionalists priests hold that
even Jews who reject Christ can be saved.
Bishop McKenna is probably one of
the most “traditional” of the independent priests or Bishops in the country and
he holds that even Jews who reject Christ can be saved, as proven in our
article. Bishop Sanborn holds the
same thing. He kicked a friend of ours
out of his church in
So, you complain about our assertion that there are
hardly any traditional priests that can be trusted with regard to the
Faith. Well, that’s too bad, because
that’s just simply the truth. Only a
heretic would state that the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV and the other independent priests
who believe that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith in non-Catholic
religions are not heretical. According
to you, a Catholic is supposed to have no problem with priests who believe that
Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved, just as long as they don’t profess belief in universal salvation.
I will now quote from the SSPV Responds
section of our new book to document how the SSPV denies the dogma and
contradicts themselves word for word in the process.
THE SSPV RESPONDS
The SSPV
responded to us in the Fall, 2003 edition of their publication. Referring to Brother Michael
Dimond and myself as “Brothers Grim” on the introductory page of their issue,
Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV writes:
The
SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall, 2003, introductory page: “The controversy
surrounds the Church’s teaching regarding ‘Baptism of Desire.’ The
Brothers Grim try to make it look as though traditional Catholic priests are
denying the Catholic doctrine that outside of the Church there is no salvation,
but no traditional Catholic priest is disputing the necessity of membership
in the Church for salvation.”
Oh really? Remember that claim (“no traditional Catholic priest is disputing the
necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”) dear reader. And remember how I have pointed out that the
thing which most characterizes the denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation is dishonesty. Remember how we have seen that the heretics
on this issue speak out of both sides of their mouth with a satanic
double-tongue: one minute they tell you that the Church is necessary and the
next they deny it; one minute they tell you that there is no salvation outside
the Church and the next they explain it away.
So now watch the heretics at work.
Watch how the heretics of the SSPV teach on page 1 of their Fall, 2003
issue the exact thing they deny on the introductory page. On pages 1-8 of this same issue, the
SSPV carries an article by Francis Fenton explaining what they consider the
real meaning of Outside the Church There
is No Salvation.
The
SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton
Article, Fall, 2003, p. 1: “It is a doctrine of our faith that ‘outside the
Church there is no salvation.’ This does not mean, however,
either that an individual is assured eternal salvation simply because he is a
member of the Roman Catholic Church or that
he cannot be saved because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.”
Did you get that? Outside the Church There is No Salvation
“does not mean… that he cannot be
saved because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.” But on the introductory page of this issue,
Fr. Jenkins told us on behalf of the SSPV that no traditional priest “is
disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”! They assert here the exact heresy – word for
word – which they claimed to reject on the introductory page! The statement here on page 1 of their
publication (that persons who are not members of the Church can be saved) thus
proves that their statement on the introductory page (that no one is disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for
salvation) was a complete lie! It confirms what we have been saying all along
about these dishonest heretics. The
heretical Society of St. Pius V priests are so blinded by their denial of this
truth that they cannot see that they are word for word contradicting
themselves, in a matter of a few pages and in the very issue in which they
purport to clarify their belief as in accord with Catholic teaching.
Thus, as I have said, it is a fact that the SSPV rejects the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and they lie every time they say they
uphold Catholic teaching on the necessity of Church membership for
salvation. They indeed believe and
obstinately hold that Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. can be saved without
the Catholic Faith. In fact, the same
article in their Fall, 2003 issue proceeds to deny the dogma in bold fashion over
and over again.
The
SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton
Article, Fall 2003, p. 5: “A
non-Catholic, then, who, through no grave fault of his own, is not a formal
member of the Church at the moment of death, is certainly not going to lose his
soul on that score.”
The
SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton
Article, Fall 2003, p. 6: “So, is it
true and an article of faith that ‘outside the Church there is no
salvation’? Yes, it is. Does this mean that a person, no
matter how praiseworthy a life he may have led, will be eternally lost
who, through no grave fault of his own, is not an actual member of the
Church at the moment of death? No, it
does not.”
But the SSPV’s Fall, 2003 issue is not yet finished denying this
dogma.
The
SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton
Article, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this
doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the
strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible
ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or
formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the
billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half
centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I
simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
This is
brazen heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Question 16- Can one gain a Plenary Indulgence if
there is no Pope?
Hello MHFM!
Here is an
off the wall question ... If there is currently no pope, can one still gain a
plenary indulgence? As you know, one of the requirements of
(hopefully) gaining a plenary indulgence is to say prayers for the
intention of the pope. No pope ... no plenary indulgence?
In IHM, Dan
K.
MHFM: We believe
that if one prayed the three Hail Marys for the intentions of the Papacy or the
Church it would be sufficient to gain the Plenary indulgence, but I’m not aware
of any specific decree or writing on the topic.
In any case, this question would not be particular to our own time, but
would apply in any Papal Interregnum (any period when we have no Pope, due to
the death of the Pope, etc.)
Question 17- Where is
the Church in the world today?
Guys - I was reading thru your web
site and have
two questions:
Where is the Church in the world?
-Mike
MHFM: The answer to your first question is that the
Church exists with those traditional Catholics who maintain the faith whole and
inviolate and do not compromise with heresy or the apostate Bishops.
St.
Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful,
they would be the true Church.”
Fr. William
Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before
Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of
Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in
possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the
total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be
deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”
Fr. William
Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was
virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining
charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism
should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of
popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we
should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and
Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”
Bob Sungenis,
a “Catholic” apologist and defender of Vatican II and the New Mass, was
recently asked a question by a man who was concerned that John Paul II may not
be the Pope. The man had read an
argument that John Paul II cannot be the Pope because John Paul II’s new Code
of Canon Law teaches that Catholic priests can lawfully give Holy Communion to
non-Catholics. The man was troubled by
the argument that if John Paul II is the Pope, then the Catholic Church has
officially erred in allowing Communion to be given to non-Catholics.
In the past, Bob Sungenis responded to
this argument by making the argument that John Paul II has protected himself
from error because Canon 844.4 of the New Code only concerns “danger of
death.” In our
article on Bob Sungenis, we refuted this ridiculous argument. The “danger of death” escape is false, first
of all, because Canon 844.4 teaches that Communion may be given in danger of
death or some other great necessity.
Canon 844.4, New Code of Canon Law: “If the danger
of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the
diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly
administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion
with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own
community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in
these sacraments and are properly disposed.”
Secondly, the Bob
Sungenis “danger of death” escape is false most clearly because Vatican II, Antipope John
II’s Catechism (#1401) and Canon 844.3 all teach the same heresy
that Catholic priests may give Holy Communion to non-Catholics without any mention of “danger of death”!
“Given the
above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and
the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith
are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their
own accord and are properly disposed.”
There is no mention of
“danger of death.”
Antipope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (#
1401):
“When, in the
Ordinary’s judgement, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance,
and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the
Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give
evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess
the required dispositions.”
There is no mention of
“danger of death.”
Canon 844.3,
1983 Code of Canon Law:
“Catholic
ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and
anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have
full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the
sacraments and are properly disposed.
This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of
the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as
these sacraments are concerned.”
There is no mention of
“danger of death.” So, we can see that
Mr. Sungenis’ “danger of death” argument is blown out of the water. Vatican II
and the New Catechism teach that Holy Communion may be given to Eastern Schismatics
without any mention of danger of death.
Thirdly, the Bob Sungenis “danger of death” escape is false because even if Vatican II had mentioned “danger of death,” it still
wouldn’t change the heresy. It is never
lawful to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic until he reconciles with the
Church, and every Catholic should know this.
Mr. Sungenis is actually a heretic for defending and asserting that it
is allowable to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic in danger of death. He rejects the following dogma that the
sacraments do not profit non-Catholics unto salvation; and thus, that it is
never lawful to administer Holy Communion to a non-Catholic.
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 for 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.”
It is a solemnly defined dogma that only for those who abide in the
Roman Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation. Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed
that non-Catholics who receive the Holy Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive
it to their own damnation.
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:
“Jerome used to say it
this way: he who eats the Lamb outside
this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in
the ark.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17,
1835:
“… whoever dares to
depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the
divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb
outside of this house is unholy.’”
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862:
“… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has
profaned.”
But after
all of these facts were posted in our article about him months ago, proving that Canon 844.3 mentions nothing of
danger of death, that both the New Catechism and Vatican II explicitly teach
that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Communion without any mention of danger
of death, Bob Sungenis is still using the same false and refuted response. In Question 27 (June, 2004) of the Questions
and Answers Section of his website, Bob Sungenis wrote:
R. Sungenis: “Second, we had the issue of Canon 844 come up on
our Q and A board in December of 2003, so I will not have to repeat myself…
The simple answer to this is that Canon
844.4 is speaking about something far different than the above mentioned papal
decrees, namely, the "danger of death." None of the papal statements you have solicited are addressing the
issue of death, but only the general rule that the sacraments are not to be
given to non-Catholics. Moreover, canon 844.4 is careful to say that those who
do not have full communion can receive the sacraments "provided that they
manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly
disposed." Thus, even in the face of an emergency such as death,
precautions are taken. END
Although I an no fan of
John Paul II, he is the pope and we must respect his office, or God will judge
us. As much as we would like to pin him
down, John Paul II has protected himself in Canon 844 because his mandates are
only in cases of exception or emergency, not as a general and binding rule
of the Church. As pope, he has the right to make those exceptions.”
This is completely false and already
refuted. It is actually a lie,
considering that we pointed out this falsehood months ago. Why anyone actually buys this man’s defense
of the Vatican II sect is beyond me. The
fact is that it is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church teaches that it
is unlawful to give Holy Communion to non-Catholics. The
Question 18-
What do you think of Anne Catherine Emmerich?
Recently I read the book The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus
Christ - the visions of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich by Tan books. Chapter
LIX paragraph 4 of this book reads as follows:
”I next saw our Lord, with his triumphant procession, enter into a species of
Purgatory which was filled with those good pagans who, having had a faint
glimmering of the truth, had longed for its fulfillment: this Purgatory was
very deep, and contained a few demons, as also some of the idols of the pagans.
I saw the demons compelled to confess the deception they had practised with
regard to these idols, and the souls of the poor pagans cast themselves at the
feet of Jesus, and adored him with inexpressible joy: here, likewise, the
demons were bound with chains and dragged away. I saw our Saviour perform many
other actions; but I suffered so intensely at the same time, that I cannot
recount them as I should have wished.”
This has me totally confused as I thought only those without mortal sin made it
to or could make it to Purgatory. Could you please explain this paragraph to
me. Just when you have time.
Appreciatively, B. R.
MHFM: The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not
trustworthy. Catholics should not read them. The vision that you
quoted is heretical for saying that there are pagans in Purgatory, which is
contrary to Catholic Faith. The fact is that there are no pagans in
Purgatory, as all who die as pagans go to the fires of hell (de fide, Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence).
It is necessary to have the Catholic Faith to be saved.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting
fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to
the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity
of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in
it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving
and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of
eternal rewards; and that nobody can be
saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed
blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of
the Catholic Church.”
The vision you
quote is not the only vision from Anne Emmerich which is heretical. There are other visions which are quoted from
Anne Emmerich which are contrary to Catholic Faith, like her supposedly seeing
a Jew and Protestants in Purgatory. All of these visions must be
rejected, as they are contrary to dogma. The “visions” of Anne Emmerich
are a prime example why Catholics must be very careful when reading private
revelation, as private revelation can come from the devil. A Catholic
really should not read Anne Catherine Emmerich, except perhaps to expose her
visions, as one's faith will be attacked and possibly corrupted. It is
true that Anne Emmerich did not write down her own visions, but had an editor
doing it for her. So it’s conceivable that the editor may
be responsible for some of the false statements in the visions;
however, it is more likely that she actually saw these visions, which
were simply given to her by the devil.
Question 19- What did you think of Malachi Martin?
DEAR BROTHER MICHAEL DIAMOND--
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF FR. MALACHI MARTIN??? WAS HE AS HOLY AS EVERY ONE SAYS HE
WAS??? WHAT ABOUT HIS DEATH??? HOW DID HE DIE???
IN YOUR OPINION WAS HE A VERY SUCCESSFUL EXOECIST??? WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE
HAVING YOUR BROTHER PETERS OPINIONS ON THESE
QUESTIONS TOO. HOW WELL DID YOU AND YOUR KNOW FR. MARTIN???
THANK YOU !
MHFM: I
spoke with Malachi Martin on the telephone a few times when Martin was living.
I know the following information will upset some
people, but the truth must be told. The
fact is that Malachi Martin held to and publicly spread numerous heresies, as
well as the most pernicious and misleading errors regarding the current
apostasy. For instance, when he was on the Art Bell radio program he stated
that pagan, American Indian religions glorify Jesus. These are pagan, false religions of the
devil; yet Martin says they glorify Jesus.
Martin's statement was completely heretical and a denial of the Faith.
Malachi Martin also publicly stated in an
interview with Bernard Janzen that Buddhists can be saved and that John
Paul II has never taught heresy!
Only one who was completely unfamiliar with Antipope John Paul II (which
Martin was not) or a conspirator or an apostate would ever dare to utter such
an outrageous statement. Malachi Martin
also promoted the false and evil notion that John Paul II is just a weak man
surrounded by much worse men who are the
real problem, thereby exonerating John Paul II from guilt in the
process. This is exactly what the devil wants people to believe, and it
has been imbibed all over the “traditional” and false “conservative”
movement. We've seen firsthand how his books, especially Windswept
House, have falsely influenced many traditionalists (especially in
the SSPX, among whom his views are rampant) to exonerate John Paul II from the
Vatican II apostasy, and shift the focus to other people - other people who, in
reality, are just following his program of apostasy. This has given many a false hope in the false
Vatican II sect.
Malachi Martin would occasionally reveal some
very interesting facts, and then mix them in with all kinds of
falsehoods. He was a mass of confusion. For instance, he stated
publicly on the Art Bell program that the validity of the Novus Ordo is
questionable (which means that it must be considered invalid), and then when he
was asked where one could go to a Seminary he would just say, "find a good
one"! Why didn't he tell the poor person asking the question that he
couldn't go to any Novus Ordo Seminaries since they are celebrating
"Masses" that cannot be considered valid? Martin would speak
about Paul VI being the choice for the “Anti-Church,” while at the same time he
defended the Anti-Church of which Paul VI was the head.
The fact is that he was a man who misled countless
souls into error and a false explanation of the Vatican II Apostasy - his false
explanation being all the more deceptive because of the conservatism and
the truths with which it was mixed. And he may have been far worse than
we can even imagine. We have seen
a serious expose of Malachi Martin which brings forward evidence that he
was an agent of international Judaism.
One must ask: why were his books published by major Jewish Publishing
houses? There is also a book written about him called Clerical
Error, in which the author (a prominent man) claims that Martin
carried on an affair with his wife. Some may say that this is all meant
to discredit him, but we have an acquaintance who met Malachi Martin and saw
him give a woman a deep kiss on the lips. This only lends credence to the
claims of the author of Clerical Error. We also know a Biblical Scholar who was going
to co-author a book with Malachi Martin.
This Biblical Scholar knew Martin well and was not convinced that he was
not working for some secret Society.
Many don’t
know that Malachi Martin’s first book was called Jesus Now. This book
denies the Second Coming of Christ and is filled with blasphemies against Our
Lord Jesus Christ. Martin never publicly renounced this most
disgusting work. These are the facts about Malachi Martin, as disquieting
as they may be to some.
Question 20- The CMRI does not have valid priests?
We no
longer attend CMRI as the Bull of Pope Paul IV states that everything a heretic
does is absolutely null and void.(The Thuc and Lefebvre consecrations after
their signing of the VII documents.) Therefore, the CMRI has no power to
even bless rosary beads, let alone absolve from sins or effectively pronounce the
holy words of Consecration.
God bless
you! Mr.& Mrs. K
MHFM: Dear Mr.
& Mrs. K., You are not correct about this. Paul IV’s Bull is referring
to acts proper to an office; he is not referring to the administration of the
Sacraments. It is heresy to say that heretics cannot validly consecrate
the Eucharist. This is why the Church has always acknowledged that
heretics like the Greek Orthodox have valid priests and valid
Masses. A heretic can also absolve from sins in certain situations,
which is why a Pope and Saints have taught that a Catholic could even
go to a Greek Orthodox in danger of death. Someone has clearly misled you
in this area. The CMRI is definitely heretical, that is clear, and so no
one is required to attend their Masses, but their priests are valid and their
sacraments are valid. It seems as if you have been speaking with some of
the heretics in the Northwest who promote the idea that none of the
traditionalist priests have jurisdiction, which is completely wrong.
Almost all of those people also deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation, by the way.
Question 21 – Am I going to lose my soul going to the Novus Ordo?
DEAR BRO. MICHAEL AND PETER-----
I AM A GENTELMAN IN MY 50s AND I AM NOT ABLE TO GET TO A LATIN MASS OR A
BYZANTINE LITURGY----ALL WE HAVE IS NOVUS ORDO---AND I CANT TRAVEL LONG
DISTANCES TO ATTEND TRADITIONAL SERVICES. AM I DOOMED TO HELL FOR THIS???
CAN MY SOUL STILL BE SAVED??? PLEASE, RESPOND. IN CHRIST
MHFM: Yes,
Question 22 – What about “material/formal pope sedevacantism”
Dear Bro. Diamond,
What do you make of the so-called "material/formal sedevacantism"
proposed by some traditional priests? I look forward to your response. Thank
you and God bless!
Pax Tecum,
Steven K.
MHFM: Steven, you
are referring to the Cassiciacum Thesis or the “material/formal pope”
idea. This idea is not actually
Sedevacantism. This is the theory that
John Paul II is still the Pope materially,
but formally he has lost
jurisdiction. So, this idea asserts that John Paul II is the Pope, but that he has lost
jurisdiction, even though he is still the Pope. This is an impossibility, a false idea. And it is heretical because it contradicts
the following dogma defined by
Pope Pius IX,
The
proposition anathematized above, especially the bolded portion, is exactly what
the “material/formal sedevacantists” say.
Therefore, it is not a position that can be held by Catholics. The fact
is that John Paul II is either the Pope with supreme jurisdiction or he is not
the Pope at all (and the latter is true, of course).
I also want to mention something that
really bothers us. The SSPX recently
published a book called Sedevacantism: A
False Solution to a Real Problem.
This heretical book was actually advertised by the apostate John Vennari
in Catholic Family News. The entire
first portion of this book deals with the material/formal pope idea, which is
not even Sedevacantism! So, get this:
the incredibly dishonest SSPX publishes a book supposedly addressing the
question of Sedevacantism, when most of the first portion of the book deals
with a position that isn’t even Sedevacantism.
This enables the SSPX to deceive their readers again, by making it appear, to those ignorant of
these facts, as if they are addressing Sedevacantism, when the fact is they are
not even discussing Sedevacantism, but the material/formal Pope
position. This is how heretics kill
souls and lead them astray.
Question 23– Can a Catholic pray for the deceased Fr. Wickens?
Dear Brother Peter,
I also wanted to let you know that Father
Gonzales of SSPX at St. Jude's this past Sunday also asked us to pray for
Father Wickens. Do you think that that
is ok?
Scott K.
MHFM: We are sorry to hear about the death of Fr.
Wickens, but the sad fact is that Catholics cannot pray for him, because there
is no evidence that he died a faithful Catholic, and there is much evidence to
indicate that he died adhering to and accepting various heresies.
Without question he will be praised as a hero by
many of the false traditionalists. Any
time any priest dies who celebrated the Latin Mass they honor him as if he were
a Saint, no matter what he believed. All
that matters to them is that he said the Latin Mass – and he’s going straight
to heaven. Whereas Martin Luther cried
“Faith Alone,” the false traditionalist heretics hold to Salvation by the Latin
“Mass Alone.” They could care less what
the priest actually believed.
Up until just before his death Fr. Wickens displayed a picture of John Paul II at his chapel. This was well after Fr. Wickens was aware and
made aware of John Paul II’s heresies and many acts of apostasy, and the
corresponding arguments showing that he is not Pope.
Fr. Wickens also willed his church to the heretical
SSPX, years after he knew that the SSPX believed that souls can be saved in
false religions! In fact, when two
issues of our magazine were published detailing the SSPX’s teaching that
Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved without the Catholic Faith,
as well as the apostasy of the Vatican II sect, Fr. Wickens wrote to us and told us to attack the real enemies: the
American Bishops. In other words, Fr.
Wickens apparently didn’t see the SSPX’s belief that souls can be saved in
non-Catholic religions as a heresy that must be denounced. So it is a fact that he accepted as true
Catholics those who believe that souls can be saved in false religions and
without the Catholic Faith. Thus, Fr.
Wickens demonstrated obstinate heresy on the salvation dogma.
Also, in the SSPX’s book published in 2003 called Priest where is thy Mass?, Mass where is thy
Priest?(16 Priests tell why they celebrate the Latin Mass), Fr. Wickens
says on page 145: “A priest friend of
mine who is still with the Novus Ordo and doing the best he can…” This indicates that Fr. Wickens held that a
priest could do the best he can while celebrating the Novus Ordo. This unfortunately reflected his compromising
and heretical attitude toward the Vatican II sect. And Fr. Wickens was not new to
traditionalism; he had been involved with it for decades. So anyone who should know what to hold on
these issues, and would bear responsibility for his positions on these issues,
would be someone like Fr. Wickens.
The fact of the matter is that if one can pray for Fr. Wickens and
consider him faithfully departed, then we are all wasting our time – we should
all join the SSPX, because then one is saying that these issues of
faith mean nothing and that one can be saved while obstinately adhering to the
heretical positions of the SSPX (to whom Fr. Wickens willed his church).
That being
said, we of course acknowledge, accept and hope that anyone can convert or
amend his positions before death. And we
truly hope that Fr. Wickens did, but
since there is no evidence that he did change his positions on these issues of
Faith before death –one cannot consider him faithfully departed without
considering anyone who obstinately embraces heretical positions faithfully
departed; and therefore, one cannot pray for him or encourage others to do so. There must be evidence in the external forum
that a person adhered to Catholic truth or converted to Catholic truth before
death in order for a Catholic to pray for him and consider him faithfully
departed. In Fr. Wickens’ case,
Catholics don’t have this evidence. On
the contrary, one of his last acts was to will his church to the heretical and
schismatic SSPX, a group whose heresies he knew about for years. Thus, one cannot pray for Fr. Wickens. This position is fully in line with Catholic
truth.
Question 24– Aren’t you misusing the term apostate?
You often
call John Paul II, his Bishops and other heretics apostates. An apostate is one who gives up the Christian
completely, so you are misusing the term.
They are heretics, not apostates.
J.M.
MHFM:
No, we are not misusing the term apostate. It is perfectly accurate to label Antipope
John Paul II and his Bishops apostates. Pope
Pius IX labels the “Old Catholics,” who merely denied Papal Infallibility
(one dogma), as apostate priests in
Pope Pius
IX,
In
his book The Liturgical Year, Abbot Guéranger refers to Martin
Luther as an apostate:
“Luther would have the world believe
Him (God) to be the direct author of sin and damnation… Calvin followed; he took up the blasphemous doctrines of the German
apostate…” (Vol. 10, Feast of the Sacred Heart, p.428.)
In the absolutely strict sense used by canonists,
the word apostate applies only to
those who abandon all profession of the Christian faith entirely. In other senses, it is applied by Popes and
Saints to heretics who give up the Christian Faith by virtue of their rejection
of one or more dogmas; for, as Pope Leo XIII teaches, those who repudiate one
article of the Faith reject in one act the whole of Christian teaching.
Pope Leo
XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29,
1896:
“… can it be lawful for anyone to reject
any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? –
without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one
sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing
can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith,
as the Church teaches, is that
supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He has revealed to be true, not
on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of human
reason [author: that is, not because it seems correct to us], but because of
the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be
deceived… But he who dissents
even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith,
since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”
So Antipope John Paul II and his Bishops are
certainly apostates, especially when we consider that many of
their heresies involve not only a denial of one or more dogmas of the Faith,
but a denial of the author of our Faith Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com