Click here to see our new website: www.vaticancatholic.com

E-Exchanges Archive 2

*This section of our website will contain some less formal – and short – e-mail exchanges that we’ve had which we feel may be of value to our readers. This is the Archive for old E-Exchanges. For current ones, go here: E-Exchanges We will include those portions of the exchanges we deem relevant and valuable. We often add bolding and underlining which are not necessarily that of the other party. The statements from MHFM are in red and begin at the far left of the page. The statements from the other side are indented.*

New V-2 Debate

MHFM: This is a debate on the issue of whether Vatican II (and the Vatican II sect) teaches the heresy that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion. William, with whom we had a more formal debate, came back to debate on this topic.

Debate: does Vatican II teach that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion? [39 min. audio]

This will be found permanently in the Telephone Conversations section of our Traditional Catholic Audio Programs. For a file relating to some of the quotes mentioned in this debate, see: The Vatican II sect vs. the Catholic Church on non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion [PDF].

Listened

I wanted to tell you that I had my friend's mother listen to a little bit of some of your audio programs that I had on my iPod. She really liked what she heard. She said that they were very well done… She asked me to give her a copy of them so her and her husband could get a chance to hear the rest of them( they are both a little computer shy). I have discussed a few of the issues with the V2 church with them, but we really don't get that much time together. They have admitted they have had their own problems with the V2 Church. Hopefully once they hear what you have to say they will be fully convinced and leave the New Mass.

MHFM: Thanks, hopefully they will come around.

Bad Confessions

MHFM,

Hello, I have two questions. First is about St. Teresa of Avila when she said that bad confessions damn the majority of Christians. Aside from making sure that one does not hide any sin out of pride, is there anything else one should do to ensure avoiding a bad confession? Second, I saw your headline about BeXVI changing the stations of the cross. Are the stations of the cross that have been used previously traditional, and if not then what are the traditional stations of the cross? I would appreciate your help.

Kenneth

MHFM: We think that people can make bad confessions by attempting to justify their sins while confessing them. In other words, they might give so many reasons or explanations, etc. that they basically excuse themselves for the sins they have committed, and in so doing can make a bad confession.

Benedict XVI is eliminating certain Stations of the Cross for World Youth Day, so as not to offend members of false religions. You can find the Stations of the Cross in a traditional missal.

Returned

Thank you for the critical information and good counsel that has helped me return to Catholicism.

Gloria Howard

California

College Blasphemy

Greetings, Brothers.

Just couldn't resist a comment. In your telephone debate with the NO apologist in Chicago (whose ignorance was astounding!), I, too wondered about his continual use of the term "the Deity". However, after reading the e-mail about this abominable woman at a "Catholic" college allowing only gender-neutral terms for God, I understand why! Of course, the most important prayer which Jesus himself taught us called the "Our Father" (do you suppose they've ever heard of it?) must be a horror to them. These people get wackier by the minute.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you do to spread the truth.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

Margaret Moore

What Heresy?

Really? What heresy do I adhere to?

MHFM: The dogma you deny is that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

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

“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…”

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

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

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):

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

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

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”[1][v]

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

“Catholic College”

Subject: An excerpt from a “Catholic college”

In a syllabus for Moral Theology, a nota bene appears from the ex O.P. nun who was hired as chair of theology:

A "requirement" for my class is that you will NOT refer to God as "FATHER" (Emphasis mine). The following gender 'neutral' references for God, i.e., Creator, the Loving One, etc. are acceptable. Your semester and final grades will reflect your adherence to this requirement." Needless to say, that ex-blasphemer would have had seen me jumping out of a window after hearing that trash.

The blasphemy continues:

"Mother God, overshadows Daughter Mary." A student in this moral theology class questioned this ex-nun by asking two questions: The first: "What does moral theology" have to do with the incarnation? The second: "In stating that God is female and therefore "overshadowed" Daughter Mary, you are making the blasphemous assertion that Jesus Christ was born of a lesbian union!" From what I gathered, the walls of the classroom practically disintegrated. Kudos to the student.

Again, God is so good to us for giving the truth of the Catholic Faith, and then we have these nitwit ex-nuns… While it is true that God being eternal is beyond the confines of time, space and gender,it was JESUS who REVEALED God to us as FATHER- therefore, the matter has been settled.

MOTHER GOD?? May God have mercy on those who dare even think this, much less profess it.

[Name Withheld]

Affected

DEAR BROTHER

I AM SO DEEPLY AFFECTED BY THE THINGS I AM READING IN YOUR BOOK. I THINK HAVING A PRIEST TO CONFESS TO WOULD FREE ME UP INSIDE FROM A LOT OF THE BURDEN OF YEARS OF MIS-INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BEEN ABIDING BY. I SEE IT AS A CLEANSING STEP. BUT, TO REJECT THE MASS ALTOGETHER KNOWING THAT I AM DISABLED AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO A CHURCH TOO FAR AWAY I AM WORRIED. WHAT WOULD I DO WITHOUT MASS?...

PLEASE REPLY AND THANK YOU..........THERESA

MHFM: We’re glad to hear about your interest, but you must realize that the New Mass is not a Mass. Why is this so hard for some people to understand or accept? It’s not valid. You’re not going to a Mass if you go there. God doesn’t want you to go there. It’s nothing more than a Protestant service: The Invalid New Mass.

False Traditionalist Cowards

MHFM: A false traditionalist named Michael Hamilton wrote to us criticizing our views on sedevacantism. We asked him if he would be willing to have a recorded conversation, in which we could respond directly to his points and ask him our own. He has refused. This is not a surprise. All of these heretics are the same. They like to hide behind their computers and send out their arrogant and false arguments. But they refuse to get into a conversation where their points could be directly addressed and refuted, where they can’t run and hide from the facts. They are pathetic, and they are not of the truth.

V-2 Schism

Did you read in the subscriber comments for the article Orthodox bishop shares Communion with Catholics posted in "News and Commentary:"

My Greek Orthodox friend, who accepts the authority of the pope but not the filioque, will soon be formally welcomed into the Catholic Church -by the nuncio, no less- WITHOUT CEASING TO BE ORTHODOX!! This is a VERY new thing! It shows just how little separates Catholics from Orthodox and how the Catholic Church is willing to accomodate. My friend's been receiving communion in the Catholic Church -with permission- for years.

MHFM: That certainly shows how people are imbibing the heresies of the new religion and losing their souls as a result.

Cheat

To The Brothers Dimond:

While I wholeheartedly agree with 99.9 % of what's on your website, I must disagree with your views on cheating as a mortal sin for the following reasons:

First: As you are well aware, mortal sin must have three SIMULTANEOUS properties: grave matter, sufficient reflection and complete consent. I hardly think that
one who cheats at a game of monopoly can justifiably before God be damned for all eternity. To me, that's plain meaness and if one is sorry for such an act, it's NOT going to affect someone's salvation. While the act of cheating is indeed wrong, it cannot be compared to one who plagarizes a dissertation or paper as part of a graduation requirement and then ends up with a degree with work that was not his own, because all three elements of mortal sin were concurrent when the act occurred.

Secondly: If the game of monopoly was a game in which money was being exchanged, that is gambling and this can quickly become a mortal sin if one
were to squander his wages on such a game when the revenue is needed to support himself and/or family.

Lastly, I don't think that any traditional Catholic would condone cheating, and as you cite, "if we were only honest in our daily lives." Yet, if we really examine our consciences, are any of us really that honest- be it with God, our neighbor or ourselves? I certainly cannot say that by any means, because in the course of a day, there are times that I stumble and fall. If we were, there would be no need for confession, correct?

MHFM: In response to your points: First, cheating at a serious game does constitute grave matter, as we’ve explained. To respond by saying that it would seem “mean” for God to damn someone over that, well, then you need to read some of the Old Testament. You need to see how God looks at disobedience to Him and a failure to live up to His truth.

Second, the question of whether money was exchanged is irrelevant to the point. We were talking about a normal game of monopoly.

Third, people who would cheat at a serious game of monopoly have some significant spiritual problems. They choose the fleeting pleasure of victory in the game over honesty; they choose to deceive their fellow men and operate dishonestly to win a game. It’s very bad. You seem to be justifying such mortally sinful cheating by saying “everybody stumbles and falls.” No, people shouldn’t cheat; people shouldn’t commit mortal sin. That’s not to say, of course, that if a person does commit a mortal sin that he cannot be forgiven. But cheating, dishonesty and mortal sin are not things to be swept away as: “everybody stumbles and falls.”

Heresy

The Only Heresy I see is you and your website

[fraterjohn]

MHFM: That means that you don’t think that this is heresy:

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000: “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”

So that shows us what kind of person you are; you totally reject the truth of God. So when a person like you says that the only heresy he sees is us and our website, well that speaks in our favor.

Supporting Heretics

Dear Brothers,

A lady at my work had her van repossessed and was given 2 weeks to get the money or lose the van. She was talking about how she was going to be $200 short, so I loaned her the money so she will have her own ride to work. This is her family's only vehicle so I felt like it was good idea to loan her the money. Since this was a loan, would this count for supporting heretics. Technically I'm still a N.O., so I suppose it doesn't matter as much. Sedevacantism sounds convincing, but I am still on the fence about it.

Sincerely,

Jude Miller

MHFM: No, we don’t think so. It’s possible that such an act of generosity might make her more receptive to the information you would give her about the traditional Catholic faith. But if she shows herself to not be receptive – or to be friendly, but not intent on doing anything about the information – then you shouldn’t help her at all in the future. We think you should recommend the website to her or give her a DVD.

Also, you need to become convinced of the sedevacantist position. Heretics cannot be Catholics, and the Vatican II antipopes are heretics.

Debates

Brothers,

I listened to your e-exchange debates this morning as well as the latest section of the Papacy program. Of course, I will need to listen to the papacy segment again to really take it all in. It's fascinating to me. The debates, on the other hand… that first guy: the 'apologist.'… I must say I agree with one of your readers that said only an evil spirit could argue in such a twisted way. And he wouldn't even properly let you speak. His 'arguments' were sheer lunacy. The second guy, the baptism,heresy,schism guy. . . I just don't know what to say. One minute he seemed to genuinely want to learn from you, then the next minute he's saying you haven't proven the point because he himself disagrees with certain teachings of the Church which you quoted for him. A bit of bad will there, me thinks. Either way, I always learn alot by listening to you instruct and refute. I love learning the history of the Church and the truths of our Faith.

S…

Reader on Cheating

Dear MHFM,

This is dedicated to the person on the e-exchange's who claimed that cheating at a serious game of Monopoly (or any other competition for that matter?) does not constitute a grave matter.

I am now going to quote something I read recently from the the book, The Secret of Confession by Fr. Paul O'Sullivan (Tan Pub., 1992 edition; orig. published in 1936; pages 65-66) I think you will find it relevant:

"Yet, dear Madam, the sin of the Angels was a thought of revolt, and as a result a third part of those glorious spirits lost their thrones in Heaven. It was the eating of a little fruit by our First Mother , Eve, that proved the undoing of the human race. Was it not an act of disobedience that deprived Saul of his throne, and was it not a sinful glance that led holy David to the commision of a heinous crime? An act of vanity too, lost him 70,000 of his subjects. Did not the venerable Eleazar sacrifice his life rather than eat swine's flesh? And what about the death of Oza and Ahio for daring to touch the Ark?

"Dear Madam, you fail to see that it is not the trifling act which is wrong, but the principle involved: the malice of the offense against an infinite God, to whom we owe our love, our gratitude and our allegiance. Surely, if God died on account of sin, sin must be dreadful. If sin is punished by Hell-fire, sin must be enourmous. When you make light of sin, you judge not Catholics, but God Himself." (emphasis my own)

Overwhelmed

I was, since yesterday, reading and listening to some of the information i came across the internet particularly in your website, mostholyfamilymonastery.com, regarding this issues about Vactican II. the truth is i am overwhelmed about the information i have been reading and listening to that, until now, i never thought that our Catholic Church is greatly divided between bishops/priests that supported the Vatican II teachings and to those who did not. for a while now, this created a sad note in my heart for i did believe we are one united church under the Catholic Church, the one true Apostolic Church founded by our savior, Jesus Christ. i never had any idea that their is a wide schism going on underneath the Catholic Church and i believe many catholics in my parish doesn't even know about the existence of this division" (my lack of better word to describe it).

i am troubled about these things which i've read and listened to...i will pray for enlightenment and please pray for me that i will be enlightened about the real issues and to the Truth thank you and peace be to all of you!

MHFM: Well, there isn’t a schism going on in the Catholic Church. It’s that the Vatican II “Church” is not the Catholic Church, and that those who incorporate themselves into this new, false, phony, counterfeit “Church” by embracing its heresies have left the Catholic Church. You must recognize that the New Mass is invalid (The Invalid New Mass), and that you must therefore get out of your parish.

Baptism

Dear Brothers, I have recently come across your web site and am trying to take it all in. I have felt like a lot of the holiness has been removed from the mass ever since vatican II. When I took classes to have my children baptised 20 some years ago I was told then that it was not really necessary, that God would take care of them. I have many questions for you but right now if you could answer one for me. What about the good people that died before the coming of Jesus who were not baptized. Where are they? I think of what Jesus told the man being crucified beside him, who asked Jesus to remember him when he entered his kindom and Jesus said this day you will be with me in my kindom. Thank you

Pat

MHFM: We get this question a lot. It’s addressed in our book. The law of baptism became obligatory on all after the Resurrection. The requirements to be saved under the Old Law, or to get to the Limbo of the Fathers, were not the same as the requirements to be saved under the New Law. The Good Thief was saved, or made it to the Limbo of the Fathers, under the Old Law.

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

Medjugorje

Greetings again!

I keep reading interesting things from your website. I didn't see anything on Medjugorje so I would be interested in knowing what you think of it. Maybe you can do an article telling people your thought on Medjugorje. I'm Croatian but I don't know much about Medjugorje…

MHFM: Medjugorje is proven to be false because it has blatant heresies in its messages. Here are some quick facts: The False Apparitions at Medjugorje [PDF].

Limbo

Dear Brothers,

A Novus Ordo friend is now perplexed about its recent demolition of the existence of Limbo, and has asked me, a Traditional Roman Catholic,"How can they keep changing so much of what we formerly believed?" I want to answer correctly since her doubt must be a gift from God, but can only find original references to the existence of Purgatory. Can you help me in directing her to a specific encyclical or biblical reference? It could be crucial in getting her to understand the deform of the Reformation revisited by imposters within the Church!

Wishing you God's continual blessings,

Cecilia Buse

MHFM: Yes, all the references are found in sections 10 and 11 of our book: ► Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [pdf file]. There one will find numerous dogmatic statements which teach that all infants who die without Baptism are not saved. One will find the infallible statements which declare that all who die in original sin only (i.e. unbaptized infants) or in mortal sin go to Hell, and that infants who die without Baptism go to a part of Hell where there is no fire. This place is known as “the Limbo of the Children.”

Website

I really enjoy your website and I think it should be ranked number ONE in the whole world. Truly God is watching you guys on this great mission to save souls especially in the darkess times in Church History. God bless you and I will keep you in my prayers. Good day.

Bernardo
Oregon

Comment

I just listened to your recent telephone debate with the Vatican II apologist. What I found interesting, and perhaps revealing, was his repeated use of the phrase "that would be between him and the deity." He used this response at least twice, I think actually three times, when you asked him if a particular hypothetical person (a non-baptized infant, a Rabbi, etc) could be saved. That choice of a word to describe God (as opposed to say "Jesus" who is our judge) struck me as more appropriate for a Mason, or a Unitarian, than for a Christian. Of course if you really dissect the Vatican II belief system there really isn't much difference.

William T. Mulligan, Jr.

Europe

I'm live in France and more and more people begins to awake now. It would be nice to have your videos translated in french and also in spanish, italian and german.
I think many poeple in Europe wants to know the truth now, but they need news and documents like those...

Regards,

Yann de Grendel

Bad Companies

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

Thank you for all the info on the website. It has been a great resource for me over the years. I want to ask you a question.......

With the incredible number of corporations that either directly or indirectly support causes which are anathema to our Catholic faith, is it necessary, or better yet even possible, for me to insulate myself against companies that support homosexual causes, abortion, perversion, sinful behavior etc. etc?......

It seems the list continues to grow every year, and I would be changing companies constantly. Also, I really don't believe that the companies that claim not to support these causes don't support them. I think they just insulate themselves by funneling money through different channels, all the while getting money to these causes........

I'm just a little man out here in this cesspool of a society trying to practice my traditional Catholic faith, stay in a state of grace and save my soul. I try to lead an extremely simple Catholic life ........Am I in a state of sin because the cereal I ate for breakfast was manufactured by a company who makes donations to homosexual causes, or the insurance I have on my 17 year old car is from a company who donated to planned parenthood?...............Why do I have the feeling, the next choices I would make would also support something just as reprehensible to me..........

God Bless you both and the zeal you have to help people come to the Catholic faith and save their souls...........

Ray............

MHFM: Thanks for the question. Since almost every company with which one would do business is involved with or supportive of something bad, we don’t know how one would avoid it. So we don’t believe there is any sin in the things you mentioned. To buy a product from a company which supports bad things is not to compromise the faith. We would say that if it’s easy to avoid – if there’s known and easy-to-use better alternative – then one should obviously take that option in purchasing things, but one could spend his life trying to avoid getting things from companies implicated in bad causes. When it comes to investing, however, we would say that you should try to avoid companies supportive of notoriously evil causes.

One should focus his or her efforts on what really matters and makes a difference: adhering to, living, promoting and spreading the true Catholic faith and not compromising with heresy.

Dear in Christ

I am pastor salamat gill serving the Lord in my local church very effectively. So I have read about you by net.

I want to work with you in future.

I am waiting your reply here soon.

God bless you richly.

Pastor Salamat Gill

MHFM: It’s very nice of you to contact us, but we could not work with anyone or any group that is not traditionally Catholic. Christ only founded one Church, and that was the Catholic Church upon St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-20). We encourage you to listen to the programs in this section:Refuting Protestantism and Eastern "Orthodoxy." Soon we will be adding more things which show, against the many Protestant denominations, that the Catholic religion is the only true and biblical Christian religion. We truly pray that you will consider this information and how critical it is for you to embrace the one true Christian religion, the Catholic religion.

Islam

Brother

I think That you people dont know anything about Islam. All the muslims believe From Adam(a) to Hazrat Isa(a)(Jesus) as you believe.But we believe one thing more that Jesus is not a God. He was one of the Most Great Prophet of God . We believe in virgin Mary.We believe in every Prophet. God send them to our world to teach us about God. They are the messenger of only one God.God is one. God told us by the Holy Quran to believe in all of this.Last Prophet Hazrat Mohammad(S) teach us to believe on that. Jews dont believe Jesus, we believe. We dont crusified him, Jews did. We are not unbelievers ,we believe more than you. I am not requesting you to learn about Quran,Please Learn your real Holy Bible first and learn that properly, Than Learn the Holy Quran. You can read the Book named "Bible Quran And Science" writer,Dr Moris bukaily.Buy

A Muslim

di…

MHFM: Contrary to what you state, we do know something about Islam. And we can demonstrate, in just one minute, why it’s a false religion. The true religion (which is the Catholic religion) cannot have blatant illogic at the heart of its teaching. Islam has blatant illogic at its heart. Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet, but it denies that He was God. Islam says that God had no Son and it repudiates the Trinity.

The illogic is this: Jesus said and indicated that He was God many times (e.g., John 8:58). If He was not God (as Islam says), then He was a false prophet for claiming to be God when He was not. According to Islam, he would logically – and we say this for the sake of argument for those who, God forbid, might accept Islam as true – have to be considered a blasphemer and a false prophet. He could not logically be considered a prophet. That proves that Islam is a false religion and that it has an official teaching which is blatantly false and illogical. It proves it without even getting into the other false teachings of Islam which demonstrate that it’s a false religion which was inspired by the enemy of mankind to lead souls astray.

Jesus Christ was God, and the Catholic religion is the one true religion. You need to convert to it and be baptized for salvation.

Deuterocanonical

Good morning Brothers,

While reseaching protestant removal of books from the bible - came across: In the New Testament, Hebrews 11:35 refers to an event that was only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books (2 Maccabees 7). Even more tellingly, 1 Cor 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?", is an allusion to 2 Maccabees 12: 44, "for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death". 1 Cor 15:29 is an obvious reference to suffering to help the dead be loosed from their sins. (Baptism also means salvific suffering for others in the New Testament, cf. Mat 20:22-23, Mk 10:38-39 and Lk 12:50) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical

I think you have mentioned several of these examples in the past - what reasons did the proteatnts cite for the elimination of Biblical Books? This is important when I speak with protestants that state, "I believe only in the King James Bible translated from the original Greek. This and only this Bible"

This assumed freedom, 1500+ years later, to say it's a valid book or not should be something that would make a protestant pause and wonder.

The reading from Judith 13:22-25 today (Seven Sorrows) is another gorgeous example of a book being eliminated that coincides directly with Catholic Teaching and therefore "had to be removed" (our blessed Mother prefigured).

Would appreciate you continuing the work you do on refuting protestantism…

Please continue your work,

Gary

MHFM: Those points are interesting. For those of our readers who are not familiar with the “deuterocanonical” books, these are the seven books of the Old Testament which the Protestants reject. It’s also interesting that the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament passages, can be shown to be quoting the Septuagint version in many passages. This is the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, compiled by 72 rabbis from the 1^st to the 3^rd century A.D., which included the seven books with the Protestants reject. Thus, the New Testament writers quote the version of the Bible which the Protestants reject.

Jew from Israel wishes to convert

I am Jewish, from Israel. As surprising as it may sound, I wish to convert to the one true faith. Can you give me instructions and a list of TC churches in Europe?

Only two ex cathedra pronouncements?

Could you tell me how many times and which popes have spoken ex cathedra in the history of the church? Or where I can find out this
information. I am discussing with at deacon and he claims that the popes have only spoken ex cathedra twice in the history of the
church. Is this true? Please advise Thanks

MHFM: What that “deacon” said is completely untrue, but it’s something that’s very commonly stated by members of the Vatican II sect and also by “traditionalists.” Below it will be explained why these people say this. A very quick way to refute it is this:

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (# 20), Nov. 18, 1893:
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (The Papal Encyclicals, Pierian Press, Vol. 2, p. 335; Denzinger 1952)

The phrase “solemnly defined” refers to an ex cathedra pronouncement. Thus, Pope Leo XIII is stating that the parts of the Councils of Florence and Trent he is referring to are ex cathedra pronouncements. That proves that there are, of course, more than two ex cathedra pronouncements in Church history. It’s very interesting to note that the part of the Council of Florence he is referring to – namely, the statement on the Bible and its inspiration – is from the Bull Cantate Domino (Denz. 706). That’s the same bull which declares that all who die outside the Catholic Church are not saved. So, this is an interesting way of proving that the Council of Florence’s definition on salvation, that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, is “solemn” or ex cathedra.

Now, as stated above, the modernists of the Vatican II sect commonly state that there are only two ex cathedra statements in Church history. This is completely false, as we’ve just shown. They say this because they are ignorant of Church history and the true nature of dogma. Some of them think that papal infallibility only became true when Pope Pius IX defined it as a dogma in 1870. Hence, they falsely think that ex cathedra statements only could have occurred at the same time (1870) or after the definition of papal infallibility in 1870. And since there have only been two “big” solemn pronouncements since 1870 – namely, Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility itself, which occurred in 1870, and the definition of the Assumption in 1950 by Pius XII – only those two are ex cathedra pronouncements, according to the modernists’ argument. Such a view is not only ridiculous, but heretical; for when a pope defines a dogma, he doesn’t make it true from that point forward, but defines the truth that Christ already revealed and what has been true since the death of the last apostle.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” (Denz. 2021) - Condemned

Thus, when Pope Eugene IV defined in 1441 that all who die as pagans, Jews, etc. are lost, he wasn’t making that true, but declaring what has always been true since the death of the last apostle. Hence, all statements, going back to the beginning of Church history, which fulfill the language requirements which were defined by Vatican I, were ex cathedra.

Now, other Modernist heretics in the Vatican II sect think slightly differently. Some “traditionalists” also hold this view: They say there were only two ex cathedra statements in Church history, but they say that the only two were: the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX and the definition of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Why do they say this? They say this because these are the only two statements in Church history in which the popes, when making the definition, actually said that they were defining what “was revealed by God.” (Or, as is probably the case with most, they say it because they heard it from someone else and they simply regurgitate it.) In the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX says that what he is defining “has been revealed by God” (Denz. 1641.). In the definition of the Assumption, Pius XII says that what he is defining “was revealed by God” (Denz. 2333.). But there is nothing in the definition of Vatican I which says that the pope must say that what he is defining has “been revealed by God.” There are many different ways in which a pope can indicate that a point of faith or morals is a truth of faith which must be held. As Vatican I defined, to speak ex cathedra a pope doesn’t have to say “revealed by God,” but must simply define a point of faith or morals while using language that makes it clear that he’s speaking as head of the Church and that his statement binds all Christians. Popes can and have indicated this in many different ways. Such a truth is necessarily revealed by God.

Regarding the number of times popes have spoken ex cathedra, the Church has never given a number on how many times these requirements have been fulfilled. However, whether a document is ex cathedra is known by looking at and understanding the significance of the language used by popes for different pronouncements.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.” (Denz. 1839)

Hopefully that explains why these two modernist misconceptions are false.

Cardinal Newman

I am a Catholic and I am wondering what your position is in regard to the teachings of Cardinal Newman. Is there anything about his works that is questionable or truly and clearly in error and if so what? And If so, how should we approach his writings?

Thank you,

Bob Gates

MHFM: Newman held a heretical view of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. He believed that there are exceptions to that solemnly defined truth. Such a view is heresy. His view was so heretical, in fact, that even certain heretics in our day who deny that dogma by watering it down have said that they consider Newman’s expressions to have been offensive to Catholic doctrine. Newman’s writings should be approached with extreme caution, and only by those who are formed and well grounded in the traditional Catholic faith and what is going on today – by people who will not be swayed from the faith by reading passages of a modernist.

Depression

Re: Your site, and questions

Hi,

I wanted to ask you something thats kind of important to me. But not really quite sure how to ask it. So I will just jump right in, and hope that what I mean is clear. I have not really been wanting to talk about this. Its been something that I have kind of kept hidden. But with the book out about all of Mother Teresas letters on her faith crisis, I feel that I can say a bit more in regards to myself.

I have a kind of cold, dark feeling myself when it comes to faith. Nor to be fair, I am not sure of it the Bipolar depression, or just my "self" having issues with faith itself. Do you know what I am refering to?

Any advise?

MHFM: Regarding people with issues of depression, we discussed this on one radio program some time back. We would recommend praying the 15 decade Rosary each day, and getting out of mortal sin (if you are committing it). Also, carefully consider your life and see if there is a grave sin you committed that has not been confessed. Also, depression can arise from spiritual sloth. If people are not doing things that are productive in their lives for their salvation, or helping other souls, a deep emptiness can set in; for deep down they know they should be doing more that is truly productive and valuable than what they are doing and it bothers them.

A Protestant converts to the traditional Catholic faith and enters our community

MHFM: Below is a link to an interesting audio interview with Joseph Myers, a new convert to the traditional Catholic faith from Protestantism (from evangelical Protestantism and Calvinism). After receiving our material recently, Joseph converted to the traditional Catholic faith and joined Most Holy Family Monastery. Hear about his story and the graces he has received. Among other things, Joseph talks about the change in his life, coming out of a spiritual fog, the power of the Rosary, hearing angels sing the first day he arrived here, etc.

Audio interview with Joseph Myers, convert from Protestantism and newest member of our religious community. He speaks of his recent conversion and entrance into religious life [31 min. audio]

Joseph Myers, convert from Protestantism

“Catholic” funeral for Pavarotti

Dear Brothers,

Once again, with the elaborate "Catholic" funeral of Pavarotti, the Vatican II church promotes the heresy that there are no eternal consequences for the mortal sin of adultery. Even Benedict XVI sent his condolences to a man who dumped his wife after 35 years of marriage and "married" his secretary. Here is a link to an article in which a novus ordo priest, who stated that the whole funeral amounted to "profanation of the temple", was criticized by the funeral director. This funeral director stated that the NO priest should have "kept his mouth sewn shut". This is quite telling of the funeral director, since that is one of the things they do to the dead.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5118751.html

The whole event shows once again TOTAL APOSTASY of the Vatican II church.

Bridget

MHFM: This is quite a scandal. Divorced and remarried, yet he’s given a “Catholic” funeral by the Counter Church, in the cathedral with 18 priests and the “archbishop” in attendance! Wow, this is really an outrage. As you mentioned, Antipope Benedict XVI also sent his words of praise for the adulterer. This is just another proof that the Vatican II sect is apostate, and that it totally rejects basic Catholic teaching on morality, to say nothing here of its innumerable heresies against dogmas of faith. It is truly a Counter Church, and who will refuse to see it?

These people in the Counter Church stand for absolutely nothing! They refuse to excommunicate the most notorious pro-abortion politicians, and put “Catholic” funerals for adulterers right in the public’s face. What an abomination! What a grave sin and an expression of faithlessness and no love of the truth for anyone to obstinately defend as Catholic this manifest heretic and abomination, the evil and wicked apostate Antipope Benedict XVI! Woe to those that do not expose and denounce this heretic and his apostate “bishops.”

Works

Hello, if you do not mind I would like to add a few things to share the Grace message of our Lord with you. In searching the scriptures, I do not see where the Lord gives divisions to anyone..meaning... He does not judge man by being Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist...etc. These divisions are man's doing. There is the Jew, the gentile,the saved person, and the lost. Salvation is through grace and faith alone with nothing added as the Lord did all of the saving while we did all of the being saved. If Christ wasn't enough and we had to add works or anything else to it, then God the Father would have to be one of the most cruel gods around. To send His Son..His only begotten Son to the cross to die the most awful, ugly and totureous death and NOT have His Son be the ONLY way to salvation, is the meanest thing anyone could do...and yet we know that this would be impossible for our Lord to be that way. Say for instance Jesus saved you 99% of the way and it took you the other 1% to be saved, you would still be 100% lost. You cannot be your own savior and yet that is what you would be doing in adding that 1%. A person needs to come to Calvary hat in hand with the Lord doing all of the saving . The only thing that we could do without doing anything is believe. Many people have different doctrines and they will all be straightened out once we go to be with the Lord. The most important thing is"Are you saved?" Was there a time that you had asked the Lord to be your Lord and Savior and do you know without a shadow of a doubt that when you take your last breath here on earth that you will be with Him forever? That salvation is all of Him and none of us, for He will not share His glory with anybody. It is all of His work...praise the Lord. I pray that you are saved and that I meet you one day in heaven with all of the other saints. I love talking about the Lord and His word…

Denise

MHFM: You say: “He does not judge man by being Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist...etc. These divisions are man's doing.” He certainly does judge men for what doctrine of Him they hold. That’s why He says that unless one hears the Church he is as the heathen (Mt. 18:17). The men who reject the Catholic Church have divided themselves from the teaching of Christ. You believe in justification by faith alone. You have a grave misunderstanding of the Bible’s teaching on works. Justification by faith alone is condemned right in the Bible (James 2:24). You really need to hear this audio:

You also say: “Salvation is through grace and faith alone with nothing added as the Lord did all of the saving while we did all of the being saved. If Christ wasn't enough and we had to add works or anything else to it, then God the Father would have to be one of the most cruel gods around.” Well, you don’t even believe this. You believe that one must believe in Christ, so Christ didn’t do it all; one still must believe, even according to you. If He did it all, then one wouldn’t even have to believe. But the idea that He won’t condemn people on the basis of works is totally unbiblical and refuted by loads of passages, as the above audio shows. But here’s one verse which is covered in the audio which refutes your common Protestant view that God does all the saving and we are merely saved without our doing anything. Yes, God saves because one needs His grace to do all good things; but man must cooperate with His grace by choosing to accept the grace and then choosing to do (or not to do) things which will bring him to salvation, as we see here:

1 Timothy 4:16- “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”

We see that one must not only continue in the faith (i.e. one could lose it) but also do things to be saved. In doing these things (which God gives one the grace to do) one saves himself, as St. Paul clearly teaches. By failing to do them, one damns himself.

Benedict XVI in Austria

Dear Brothers,

I was flipping channels and came across EWTN's live transmission of Benedict XVI adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in a church. The Blessed Sacrament was exposed, Benedict XVI incensed the Blessed Sacrament and went back to kneel before the Blessed Sacrament. THEN A VERY INTERESTING CEREMONY HAPPENED. First, a couple, in some sort of Hindu garb lighted some candles in a platter with flowers in it, came forward and placed it on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Then, another couple, black, in African garb, also with a platter full of small candles lit the candles, came forward and placed the platter on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Then, an Asian couple, also dressed in Asian garb, came up, the woman spooned a substance on a platter that was full of candles, the candles were lit, then they both came up and placed the platter on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

Brothers, PLEASE EXPLAIN, were these couples Hindu Catholics, African Catholics and Asian Catholics or were they of other religions placing who knows what in front of the Blessed Sacrament IN THE PRESENCE OF BENEDICT XVI? Even if they were Catholics, this hideous ritual in front of the Blessed Sacrament was totally out of place. Is there any way of finding out who these people were and why this was done? Thank you for your kind response.

Maria

MHFM: Thank you for the information. Without seeing exactly what occurred, it would be difficult to say precisely what happened. However, it sounds very much like the superstitious practices of various false religions were being incorporated into the ceremony. This is very common in the Vatican II sect. John Paul II had it as basically a staple on his trips abroad, as we show in this file: The Heresies of John Paul II - a comprehensive presentation [PDF file]

Above: John Paul II’s “Mass” in 2002 in Mexico City, which incorporated the customs of the demonic Aztec culture. Indians danced before the altar wearing headdresses and breastplates. As they performed, the snake-like hiss of rattles and the beating of tom-toms could be heard. John Paul II himself was actually the recipient of a pagan “purification” ritual which a woman performed.

We would also point out that one should not refer to what’s occurring at a Novus Ordo church as adoration or to the piece of bread they are worshipping as the Blessed Sacrament, since the New Mass is not valid and Our Lord is not present there.

Heresy of the Week

MHFM: This week’s Heresy of the Week will be posted on Tuesday, Sept. 11. If you missed last week's, it’s a pretty bad one from Benedict XVI on Buddhism.

Like a veil is being lifted

Hello

Thank you so much for your website! You mention a book that explains the basic catechism. Which one is that? I went to CCD in the late 80's and it was pretty liberal. I don't want to attend the New Mass because, not only now I am realizing it's wrong, but because it always seemed so Protestant to me. My older relatives (born in the 1920's) always said there were so many things wrong after Vatican II. It was so strange for them to adjust. What is the position on these people who are older and still go to the New Mass every Sunday? Will they be allowed into heaven, because they just don't know.

Also, do you post a list of valid places to go to Confession or Mass? Do you know of any in Evansville, IN or Owensboro, KY?

Thank you so much. I have a lot to learn. It's like the veil is being lifted from my eyes.

God bless!
Elizabeth

MHFM: We’re really glad you came across the information, Elizabeth. The catechism we sell for $5.00 is a basic catechism. The package we'd recommend if you're familiar with the basics of the Catholic faith is: our 6 DVD special for $10.00, which includes 6 DVDs (with 10 different programs), as well as 3 important books, an audio disc (with 20 hours of programming) and flyers for only $10.00 (no shipping charge in U.S.).

Regarding your question about where to go to receive sacraments, if you called us here at 1-800-275-1126 we'd be happy to answer your question about that. What you said about CCD in the Vatican II "Church" (i.e. that it was Protestant) is very interesting. We've heard so many similar stories from other people. It’s very important to note because what goes on at the parish level really drives home that the Vatican II "Church" is not the Catholic Church, but a heretical counterfeit constructed for the last days.

Regarding your question about the older people in the Novus Ordo, they are being given invalid sacraments and being taught a religion of religious indifferentism. It's a matter of salvation for them to find out about the traditional faith and get out of the New Mass. The new religion and the New Mass kill souls.

Your comment about it’s “like a veil is being lifted” is very similar to what we’ve heard from many others. When people begin to recognize what has gone on and the truth of the traditional catholic faith, and how what’s being offered at the parishes is not the traditional faith, they then are able to put their finger on the emptiness and the problems which they perceived at those parishes before but couldn’t precisely identify. It all makes sense to them that this Vatican II “Church” is the counterfeit sect predicted to arise in the last days to lead people astray.

Pope revises Catholic teaching on 'limbo'

Pontiff approves report saying there is hope for unbaptized babies

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-pope0420,0,6597293.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Pope Revises 'Limbo,' Says There Is Hope for Unbaptized Babies

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267420,00.html

---

Pope revises 'limbo' for babies - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo

---

How much longer will Our Lord be able to stay the Hand of God the Father? B-16 has just openly destroyed the reason for the Catholic Faith in his position that Limbo does not exist & that Baptism is only a protestant rite, bringing one into the faith community. I know he is (an or THE) Anti-Christ...

Jennifer

----

Pope revises 'limbo' for babies - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo

Lida Lewis

MHFM: This is undoubtedly a huge scandal both for those people inside the Vatican II sect and for Protestants, etc. One headline we read said: “Catholic Church reverses its teaching.” But for those of us who know that Antipope Benedict XVI is an antipope, and that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, it is a huge vindication. We wonder what those heretics who said that sedevacantism is absurd are saying right about now…

Searching and open

Dear Brothers in Christ

Today, I just recieved, by fate, a copy of your free DVD in the mail... After watching the first 5 minutes, I had to go to website... its overwhelming! I have much studying to do at your website, and so many questions...I was raised in the Post Vatican II church, and within a very old fashioned and devout Catholic Family, thank God. Something always seemed to "be missing" within my church... but I was lucky in that my family's pre-vatican II devotions, made up for it. At a young age I knew I had a vocation, but it took me until I was 37 to go off and pursue it. I was with The Servants of the Paraclete, and The Vocationist Fathers, as well as doing visits and retreats with The OFM's, Norbertines and others... What I experienced there, sickened my soul, and well, pretty much murdered my vocation. Yes I spoke up to Church authorities, and was pretty much blown off or told to shut up, I was pretty much advised not to speak about the things I witnessed in religious life, because I would be responsible for scandalizing others' faith...

You have no idea what it does to me to sit in church every week, surrounded by so many good

souls, knowing that wolves are tending the flock... and not knowing what to do about it, or worse yet, believing that I must be the one at fault, that I must be so outside the church that I cannot feel the devotion, love and respect of God in my church anymore. For love of God, my priest even criticizes the rosary as being Idolatry, and openly discourages devotion to the Blessed Mother...

I'm sorry, I'm digressing... I do not know where this new revelation will lead me, but I want to thank you

for all the information on your website, that I will be reading in the next few days... I know that the Catholic Church must condemn you as heretics, Ha! Ha! Thats kind of ironic isn't it? But after what I've seen with my own eyes, within the Church, I'm going to "listen" with an open mind, and discerning heart.

If time and responsibilities permit, I would appreciate any information and backround on your apostolate...

Because I see in you two, perhaps something I could use... For truly you two are standing up against something so huge, that I'm afraid to admit, it has crushed me.

Pax Christi,

Andy Schnelly

MHFM: Wow, your “priest” criticized the Rosary as being idolatrous? That’s really some outrage, even for the Novus Ordo! You need to get out of the New Mass. (Someone here just spoke with a woman who, while still in the Novus Ordo, went to nine different “priests” and eight out of nine said that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve is a myth.) The material on our website shows that the New Mass is not valid, that it’s a false Protestant service which all must avoid under pain of mortal sin. Keep researching the information presented on our website and you will see that the “Church” you are describing – which has alienated so many by its heresies, scandals and attacks on the Catholic Faith – is not the Catholic Church at all, but Satan’s counterfeit “Catholic” sect of the last days. As you continue to investigate you will see that people must leave the New Mass and practice and believe the traditional Catholic Faith of all times. It would not be accurate to say that “the Catholic Church” condemns us as heretics; you are obviously referring to the Vatican II sect, which is not the Catholic Church. We’re confident you will recognize that as you continue to examine the material. Again, we’re very glad to hear about your interest and that you came across the information. Pray the full 15-decade Rosary each day and ask God for His guidance and assistance to see and act upon the truth on these issues.

John Paul II rosary

Hello Dimond Brothers :

Just to show how bad things are in the Great Apostasy - there is a Novus Ordo group called Food For The Poor. I used to donate to these people years ago when I was still in the N.O. but no longer do since I saw the truth of the Traditional faith. However they never took my name off of their mailing list, and today, unexpectedly, I received a Rosary dedicated to John Paul II. It has the distorted crucifix that he carried around with him and in place of the Our Father beads there is an image of JPII with the inscription "Pope John Paul II" on one side and on the other side, "Pray for us." What a joke and an insult to Our Lady!...

M.H.

Response to June not liking material

In response to Junes e-mail on not liking material:

of course it gave her chills, the truth effects people in different ways. For me it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up and say " I knew it (the novus ordo) was'nt supposed to be that way" She needs to keep reading and researching and most of all PRAYING that God will lead her back to the true faith not the protestant novus ordo where the evil one has been lurking for 40 years.

stu, montana

Guest on Radio Program

MHFM: On Friday’s radio program we will have a guest. We will have a discussion with a former supporter of the SSPX about what it was like to come to the truth on the sedevacantist position and the salvation dogma while being an adherent of the SSPX, and what his experiences were in trying to share some of this truth with other supporters of the SSPX.

What’s that book?

Dear Bro. Michael Dimond,

I received in a flyer sent to me awhile back some information about a TAN Publisher book which is required reading for the men in your monastery. I'm interested in purchasing the book through TAN and cannot recall the name of the book. (Is it Ligouri? I remember that it cost around $20 and is around 700+ pages.)

Please help! God bless you in your work in the monastery. I much appreciate your writings and DVDs and devour them with great relish!

Sincerely,
Scarlett C. Miller
Chico, CA

MHFM: Thanks, we're glad you like the material. The name of the book is The True Spouse of Jesus Christ by St. Alphonsus. It was written primarily for religious. Hence, not all of it is applicable to non-religious; but everyone will benefit from reading it because the spiritual advice carries over into so many areas and it will assist everyone who follows the spirit of the message that is being given, even if a person does not or cannot apply precisely everything that is being said.

Doesn’t like the material

I received a tape from your what you call “Holy Family Monastery.” I don’t know who you are or what your plan in life is but it is not from God…. This tape just brought chills to my spine. What you are doing is wrong. The devil is sly and he is after all religious. You have fallen into his trap…

June Furno

Meadville, PA

MHFM: It’s quite interesting that June fails to cite even one specific thing which she feels demonstrates her point. She doesn’t cite even one thing because she can’t prove her point by citing anything. Rather, she can only appeal to her emotions. Her emotions have been shaken up by the true information which has convicted her and uncovered the deception under which she is laboring in the Counter Church, and even sent “chills” down her spine; but instead of receiving the grace to hear the truth she rejects it and attacks the information she cannot refute.

On Radio Appearances

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

Your show on Saturday was great!. So inspiring and filled with information. Especially those about people who had met the anti popes and how evil they appeared to be.! Can we download this program in the future? There is always so much information to digest, we have to hear it over and over again. This moring on theMark Dankof show you were also wonderful and filled with information, and I hope that you reached people who do not know the truth yet and it will get them to thinking about learning more! (I think you may have reached Mark Dankof! - he seemed very impressed and wanted to learn more- and he was very respectful of you and a very good host!) Let me know when you will be on that again too. I am sure he will want to have you back… I am about a quarter through your book, What really Happened after Vatican II. Everyone should read this book! I don't understand why people cannot see what has happened-all they ever do is complain and ask why these things are happening in the Church, and when people like you and us try to tell they they dismiss us!! Everything you say makes sense as to why we are in the Apostasy. Everyone talks about when the Apostasy will happen, and then when we really ARE living through it, they don't want to see! I mailed 3 DVD's you gave me, one to my brother and his wife, and 2 to friends. None of them said a word to me about receiving it, watching it- or even telling me that I am "wrong?". Everyone ignores the truth! God bless you and your work and for helping us see the truth!

Sincerely,

-------

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter....we heard you on the radio talk show yesterday but we were not successful in calling in. Just wanted to say that you both did an excellent job of presenting your arguments in a cool headed logical way....and we noted that the radio host was even impressed. Keep up the good work. God Bless.....Michael & Barbara Gregory

Divine Mercy, where?

MHFM: Some people have wondered where our article on why people should avoid the Divine Mercy Devotion has gone. It has been moved to a new section, which is found on our Guide, called “False Apparitions.” There one will also find articles on the false apparitions at Bayside and Medjugorje. We have been re-organizing some of the things on our website in order to simplify things, to make available primarily the most recent and important articles we’ve done on a particular subject, and to make them easier to find. We are still involved in that process, but much of it has been done, as one will see by consulting the sections on the Guide.

A reader’s thoughts on prophecy

Dear Bro. Dimond:

I don't think there'll be another V2 antipope after Benedict XVI. First, the period of 40 years (one generation) of "abomination of desolation" (novus ordo mass) is coming to an end. Second is the Malachi Prophecy, It contains decriptions for both real popes and antipopes without distinguishing who is a pope and who is an antipope. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes (Antipopes like Peter de luna are on the list) The last entry "Peter the Roman" should be dismissed because:

1. it doesn't appear as part of the prophecy until 1820.

2. meaning is too obvious compared with previous entries.

"Peter the Roman" may be appended by conspirators to fool the world into thinking Jesus is a long coming(Luke 12:45) so Antipope Benedict XVI ("Gloria Olivae", a few versions read "De Gloria Olivae") is the last entry. Descriptions can be about important events during the popes'/antipopes' reign as well as popes/antipopes themselves. for example the one on Pope Benedict XV ("Religio depopulata") is about events during his pontificate (WWI and Soviet Union).

I think the following 2 interpretations are possible:"Olive" can refer to Benedictine Order. So during Benedict XVI's antipontificate, your Order will be glorified just as St. Benedict himself prophesized what would happen at the end of world. "Olive" can also refer to Jews/Israel, so it is "glory of Israel" and this should mean conversion of Israel to the Catholic faith which is a major event right before the end of world.

Since Ratzinger is a deceiver, the purpose of choosing the name "Benedict" may well be to prevent people from digging the meaning of the prophecy.

God bless you!

d k t

Comments on radio program

Hi,

Great program and excellent expose on the so-called "charismatic" movement, also, very good treatise on the issue of attending non-Catholic worships and/or services. Some kind of in-depth post on the topic, I believe would indeed be very helpful, as there are many converts out there who may or may not have considered the Catholic perspective on this matter, which is so important as it directly affects their personal salvation. There is always that issue of non-catholic relatives and some form of religious profession involved in the performance of certain funtions of religious rites, such as funerals, wedding, and baptisms, which is a very important thing for Catholics to understand when dealing with non-Catholic relatives.

God Bless,

Nigel P.

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you liked it. You will notice that below we have just very recently posted the quote we referred to in the discussion on passive attendance.

Dear Brothers,

That was another fascinating program tonight! You were really giving me the creeps when you were talking about the possessions of Paul VI and JPII. Someone asked me a question recently that I couldn't answer, maybe you can. What do people who deliberately give themselves over to the devil think their eternity is going to be like? Do they really believe the devil is going to give them a reward, like a huge flaming throne in hell?

Also, concerning what the non-sede traditional Catholics are going to think when JPII is canonized; I read a forum discussion on one of their sites. It was extremely depressing. They were saying that if Benedict canonizes JPII, then JPII must have been a saint! That he must have been very holy, only nobody knew about it! I don't know what will wake them up.

The world is getting crazier every day, but you guys are a breath of fresh air! God bless you!

LM

MHFM: That’s an interesting question. We would speculate that they either believe that Hell will bring them some kind of pleasure – since they believe that the Devil is the one in control – or they willingly give up an eternity of misery in exchange for what they want from the Devil here and now, since they only care about what’s here and now.

No passive attendance

Dear Brothers Dimond,

I received my books on Padre Pio and your latest on Vatican II. Thank you for the extra book on Padre Pio and the flyers. I have a question also for you. Is it a mortal sin to have to attend the NO Mass because of work or family pressure. I didn't receive communion and didn't take part in the Mass at all. I just sat in the pew like a fellow Jewish co-worker did. I actually left the funeral mass right before communion and came back after communion. The funeral was for my boss's mom. I know in the future I will have to attend other family or friend funeral masses. Also, what do I do when I try to educated my mom and wife about the NO Mass and they still attend. Thanks again.

J. Settimo Matawan

MHFM: You should not have gone to New Mass, and we do believe that it is a sin. You should tell your boss that you cannot attend funerals of those who were not traditional Catholics, and services that are not Catholic. In the years prior to Vatican II, the idea of “passive attendance” developed whereby one could attend non-Catholic services as long as one didn’t actively participate; in other words, the liberal idea was taught that one could go to Protestant churches, schismatic churches, and perhaps even Jewish synagogues, etc., for the funeral or wedding of a relative or friend, as long as one didn’t “actively participate.” This was clearly a bad and compromisingly development. To refute it, we will cite Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae. Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

(This is a new quote which comes from our new book, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II. We also talked about it on our radio program.) Obviously if one must “totally shun” their religious celebrations and their buildings, then one cannot attend their services, funerals or weddings for any reason, let alone to pacify friends, relatives or co-workers.

Radio programs

MHFM: We also wanted to note here that:

Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond will be on Mark Dankof’s radio program on Monday, April 16^th, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time), on the Republic Broadcasting Network. To listen to that program live: Listen Live.

Reader: Benedict XVI did not become Muslim!

Subj: pointing out an incorrection

Dear Brothers,

I am writing to let you know in Christian charity that one of your statements contains an error. In your E-exchanges section recently, you wrote: " All of this shows us again how quickly someone such as Pope Sixtus V would denounce as absurd the idea Benedict XVI – a man who became a Muslim and likes to go to synagogues and schismatic churches – would be considered the pope with authority over the universal Church ." (Emphasis Mine)

It would be the sin of omission for me not to point out the following: One does not become a Muslim by praying the Salat with Muslims, as Benedict XVI did, even if they use the correct form of the ritualized prayer (which includes washing various parts of the body, chanting parts of the Quran, resting in a specific position, and the correct number of repetitions (Rakas). The way a person becomes a Muslim is by making the Shahada (statement or confession) which states: "La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah" or "None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." Therefore, unless Benedict said these words out loud, before witnesses, he did not become a Muslim.

I certainly do not condone what this man did, or continues to do, in the erroneous name of interfaith dialogue. It is heresy and a mockery of the true Catholic Church. I am merely pointing out this point of Muslim doctrine (or heresy, rather) so that you can be completely accurate in sharing the truth with others. At one point in my life (namely, after my brief conversion to Islam), if I had read your statement, I would have completely disregarded anything else you might have said because of this one error. And perhaps my soul would have been lost. I simply don't wish it to be a stumbling block to others.

Sincerely,

(If you post this message, please leave out my name. However, my first initial may be used. Thank you!)

MHFM: No, the statement that Benedict XVI became a Muslim is accurate. First, your problem is that you are looking at this issue from the perspective of a Muslim (a false religion you had embraced), not the perspective of a Catholic. It would be true to say that according to the specific criteria a Muslim would require for a Muslim to consider someone as part of that false religion, Benedict XVI did not do enough for a Muslim to consider him a Muslim. But as Catholics we don’t evaluate things according to what Muslims think; we evaluate them according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. According to the traditional Catholic teaching on what a Catholic would require to consider someone as apostatizing from the true religion to join a false one, Benedict XVI did do what was required. According to the traditional teaching of the Church, as repeated by St. Thomas Aquinas, an action such as worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet would be to apostatize.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Such an action would be to apostatize only if worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet (which is something short of making the famous Muslim confession) signifies the embracing or joining of the Islamic religion. Therefore, according to how a Catholic views such matters, one doesn’t need to make the Muslim prayer confession to be considered part of that false religion. Other actions signify it as well.

Thus, based on this adherence to a traditional Catholic understanding of apostate actions, it is accurate to say that when Benedict XVI prayed in a mosque toward Mecca like the Muslims (in front of millions on television) he did what was required to be considered as having joined the Muslim religion.

We can see the point illustrated by also considering a converse example. Suppose that 100 years ago a prominent Muslim imam traveled to a Catholic cathedral in a Catholic country. Suppose that he went into the cathedral and made the sign of the Cross with the archbishop. The mufti then prostrated himself along with the archbishop before the Blessed Sacrament. Most reasonable people would agree that, if this were somehow able to be shown to millions of Muslims on television, Muslims watching would almost unanimously conclude that the imam had accepted Christianity and apostatized from their false religion by joining another. Even though the imam hadn’t been baptized validly, which is the first requirement for one to be considered a Christian (and therefore he wouldn’t be considered Catholic in the eyes of the Church), in the eyes of the Muslims he would be considered to have joined another religion. So, even though Muslims might not view Benedict XVI’s action as sufficient to consider him their fellow “believer,” Catholics adhering to the traditional teaching of the Church on such matters do view Benedict XVI’s action as sufficient to consider him false believer who has embraced a false religion.

The fact that you made this point (which is not an error) such a bone of contention, and even felt obliged under pain of sin to “correct” it, displays, in our view, an unhealthy level of pride which clouds sound judgment. This is especially revealed, in our view, by your ridiculous statement that, if you had read that “error” in the past, you would have dismissed everything else we had to say. Unless a person is clearly assaulting the Catholic Church or its teaching, for someone to say that he or she would dismiss everything a person has to say based on one mistake is a clear sign of bad will. For the person who makes such a statement is not only demonstrating staggering pride, but dishonesty – as if he or she never makes a mistake. It’s the type of bad will that would cause one to become a Muslim, as you did. And, as we explained above, our statement about Benedict XVI becoming a Muslim is not an error, but is accurate from the standpoint of Catholic teaching.

Another reader on B-16’s Good Friday service

Dear Brothers Dimond

I would like to show my appreciation for your insight into the motives of antipope Benedict XVI and others who seek to displace the crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ with the Jewish Holocaust as the worst event in human history. It is disgusting and insulting to Our Lord for antipope Benedict XVI to distract attention on Good Friday, of all days, away from Our Lord's sufferings at the hands of the Jews. The deicide of Our Lord is the worst and most evil event in history. The Stations of the Cross is intended as a devotional to evoke in our hearts remorse for this crime by contemplating on the sufferings of Our Lord, which He endured for all mankind. It is wrong to distract attention from this by focussing on other people's sufferings as if those sufferings have the same degree of importance and significance for our redemption as the evil inflicted on the innocent and pure Holy Victim. I share your concern that the world is being forced to pay homage to the Jewish Holocaust in place of the homage and veneration we owe to the sacrifice on the cross of Our Lord. I also hope that you will continue to develop research into this subject, as I fear that more and more 'Catholics' consider questioning the Jewish Holocaust as off limits, whereas they feel free to deny Sacred Dogmas
of Holy Church.

Best wishes

Dr Gerard Daly

Another reader on “Holocaust”

I just wanted to comment on something you wrote:

"We have pointed out that this is a diabolical campaign to bring about the union of Synagogue and State, to outlaw any opposition to the Jewish agenda and to make the “Jewish Holocaust” the central tragedy of history in replacement of the Crucifixion of Christ. The Devil wants to replace Christ as the primary victim of history, and he wants replace Him with the Jewish people who rejected Him.

That is a great point, and I think you are right. I'd love to see something written on this subject.

Robert Siscoe

MHFM: We made this point about two months back on a radio program. The fact that the diabolical Benedict XVI did include this in the Good Friday service is very interesting, and lends further credence to our contention.

Reader on “Holocaust”

Hello Brothers in Christ,

Speaking of the so-called "Holocaust" and Nazi atrocities, don't you think that what happened in the Soviet Union under the Bolshevik Revolution was the worst atrocity in human history? In my opinion it was. Tens of millions of Catholics and other Christians perished due to the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet Union. The point I wish to make is that the Jewish controlled media will never even acknowledge it because most of the Bolsheviks were Jews (at least 70%), including its chief rulers such as Stalin and Lenin. Yet the Jews have succeeded in deceiving so many people into thinking that the phony Holocaust is the worst thing that ever happened in history.

Yours in Christ,

M.H.

MHFM: Yes, it probably was the worst ever in terms of numbers. It definitely was worse than the Nazi atrocities, even if you go with the bogus number of 6 million promoted by the Jews. And you are right that the tens of millions killed by the Soviet Union are basically never mentioned. From 1930-1934 alone over 10 million “kulaks” were led to their deaths. This is not to include the millions of others killed by the Communist regime. The following is quoted in our new book, on the section on the Consecration of Russia:

“Who were these ‘kulaks’?... In May 1929 the Council of People’s Commissars formally defined a kulak as any farmer who made any money whatsoever from any source or activity other than the sale of agricultural produce grown in his own fields. Any outside income, any processing of goods done on the farm (as by a small hand-operated mill), was sufficient to make a kulak. When the campaign of liquidation was launched in 1930, from ten to fifteen per cent of the small farmers in every region were arbitrarily dubbed kulaks and liquidated. If there were not enough of them fitting the May 1929 definition, others had to be added to fill up the quota. They could be selected by income level, actual or apparent; by leadership in local villages… by opposition to forced collectivization (a particularly frequent reason for designation as a kulak); or simply by being devout Christians… It was the first act of a farm holocaust from 1930 to 1934 that took ten million lives by Stalin’s own estimate given to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, and an estimated 14.5 million when all the victims, including those sent to the labor camps and dying there later, are taken into account.”[38] (Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, pp. 224-225.)

So much for “Latin Mass freed by Easter”

MHFM: For a few years now false traditionalists all over the world have been hysterical over the possibility that the “Protestantism-is-not-heresy” Antipope Benedict XVI might give “permission” for the Latin Mass. These false traditionalist publications were hysterical with reports that he will give back the Latin Mass by Christmas. After that it was that it would return by Easter. A few months ago one of them quoted “Msgr.” Barreiro, who supposedly stated: “I have information from a serious high level source that it is likely the motu proprio will be published before Easter.” Well, this didn’t happen either. This might be the tenth such false report.

These repeated reports (so far not one of them has been true) which have been spread with the help of false traditionalists – false traditionalists who are ready to jump at any scrap of food from the beast’s table – are getting quite annoying. As we said a long, long time back, they should stop giving credence to any of these reports. They should stop declaring that it will happen, until something is actually done, accomplished, completed. Let’s see if anything actually happens. For building up the report that it will happen or will probably happen (when it never seems to happen) only helps to build the antipope’s public image in the eyes of “traditionalists” who want to view him as a conservative.

Of course, we’ve pointed out that if Antipope Benedict XVI does give back the Latin Mass (which he might), it will only be a calculated move to deceive traditionalists and lure them back to the Counter Church at a time when almost all of the “priests” are invalid anyway. If he ever does give “permission” for it, it might only come just before or after something such as the “canonization” of Antipope John Paul II, as part of a compromising package for false traditionalists, the acceptance of which will be one of the greatest abominations in history.

A father on salvation

Dear Bros Dimond,

I'm not sure whether this has already been addressed or no, but, while scanning through some early Church Fathers' writings I came across these most excellent quotes which most befits the current situation of the Church and heretics who pervert Christ's true teaching concerning salvation.

St. Cyprian of Carthage: "Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. ...He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

And again, "Evil communications corrupt good manners." The Lord teaches and warns us to depart from such. He says, "They are blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch." Such a one is to be turned away from and avoided, whosoever he may be, that is separated from the Church. Such a one is perverted and sins, and is condemned of his own self. Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ's priests, who separates himself from the company of His clergy and people? He bears arms against the Church, he contends against God's appointment. An enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ's sacrifice, for the faith faithless, for religion profane, a disobedient servant, an impious son, a hostile brother, despising the bishops, and forsaking God's priests, he dares to set up another altar, to make another prayer with unauthorized words, to profane the truth of the Lord's offering by false sacrifices, and not to know that he who strives against the appointment of God, is punished on account of the daring of his temerity by divine visitation.

These, doubtless, they imitate and follow, who, despising God's tradition, seek after strange doctrines, and bring in teachings of human appointment, whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in His Gospel, saying, "You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." This is a worse crime than that which the lapsed seem to have fallen into, who nevertheless, standing as penitents for their crime... puffed up in his heart, and pleasing himself in his very crimes, separates sons from their Mother, entices sheep from their shepherd, disturbs the sacraments of God; and ...he sins daily. Finally, ...if he have been slain without the Church, cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.

St. Cyprian here speaks of a false sacrifice with false words, much like the new mass of Paul VI, and that he who holds not the faith holds not life and salvation. This correspondence with our present situation is striking.

In Christ, Nigel P.

MHFM: Yes, the first quote you cite from St. Cyprian is also used by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: "The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever... He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation."

It’s also interesting to note that the last part you quote from St. Cyprian was incoporated into one of Pope Pelagius II’s epistles.

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain; he cannot be crowned… if the other is slain outside of the Church, he cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.” (Denz. 247)

Most of this quote has been cited in our new book to contradict John Paul II’s heresy on non-Catholic saints and martyrs.

Why not more unity?

Why hasn't the entire traditional movement come together? Why do readers see so many attacks against other traditional groups on almost every web site that claims to be "Roman Catholic?" When do we see less condemnation and more unity?

God Bless you!

Frank "Sarge"

MHFM: Unity without the true faith – or among people who don’t share the true faith completely – is meaningless, as we see expressed in the following papal quote.

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 10), May 17, 1835:

“… Christ established this ecclesiastical power for the benefit of unity. And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith…”

Gregory XVI is emphasizing that the pope must hold the true faith, just as much as all the members. But his quote applies just as well to your question and to our situation today, when there is no pope. The “entire traditional movement” cannot come together because many self-professed traditionalists are unfortunately rejecters of the truth in one or more areas. Therefore, these particular individuals are not part of the unity of the Church, as the material on our website documents. It’s not the fault of true Catholics that many of these people believe that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved. It’s not the fault of true Catholics that many of them obstinately reject the facts and continue to recognize a manifest heretic, such as Benedict XVI, as a Catholic. It’s not the fault of true Catholics that they obstinately profess communion with the utterly apostate Novus Ordo “bishops.” There is true unity among uncompromising traditional Catholics of good will who care about the faith and hold all the true positions.

A treacherous cardinal betrays Christendom

I recently received my book order, thanks very much for the extras you threw in. You guys run a smooth operation. I’ve a question which I’ve tried to research sporadically and haven’t found much of an answer. During the 30 Years War, a Cardinal Richelieu, was I believe the Foreign Minister and most trusted advisor to France’s Louis XIIIth. For some reason, this “Prince of the Church” convinced the King to bring France into the war on the side of the Protestant Princes of Northern Germany and Scandinavia against the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor. Without the intervention of France, Protestantism may have been dealt a crushing blow at a critical time, rather than spreading its influence. Richelieu also plotted against King Phillip of Spain (who I believe was the nemesis of England’s Elizabeth). Historians say that Richelieu had at heart, the interest of France. But I find it astonishing behavior for Catholic Cardinal. Do you think or do you know if he had Masonic ties? If so, it is interesting evidence of how long (nearly 400 years ago) this infiltration of the Church has been going on. I really appreciate your work.

Bill Mulligan

MHFM: Thanks for the question. Freemasonry was officially organized and instituted in 1717 – after Richelieu’s time – but conspiratorial forces and societies which served as the root of its development were clearly in existence long before that. I don’t know if Cardinal Richelieu was a deliberate conspirator, but there is no doubt that he didn’t care at all about the Catholic Faith and served as one of its biggest enemies in history.

For those who don’t know, Cardinal Richelieu was the Prime Minister of France in the 17^th century. These were tumultuous times which saw Protestants and Catholics battle for control of various countries in Europe. Every country which the Protestants gained control of saw the Catholic Mass outlawed and the Faith greatly diminished, if not eliminated. It was critical for Catholics, therefore, to win these military engagements and to do what they could to support the Catholic side. But the despicable Cardinal Richelieu, who should have had the true Faith as his top priority and who served as the prime minister of the weak and pathetic King Louis XIII, was more concerned about weakening Spain, so that France would become the world’s leading power, than he was about anything to do with the Catholic Faith. Cardinal Richelieu deliberately funded Protestant armies all over Europe in order to weaken Spain; Spain was fighting the Protestants in various places.

“In 1630 Cardinal Richelieu renewed his alliance with the rebel Netherlands for seven more years, promising them a subsidy of a million pounds a year in return for their pledge not to make peace with Spain without French consent. He was deliberately using this exhausting war to wear down crippled Spain so that France might supplant her as the world’s leading power, not at all concerned that he was thereby strengthening the hands of the deadliest enemies of the Catholic Faith.” [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 525.]

In 1635, when France itself started war with Spain, King Philip IV of France declared the truth in anguish:

“The King of France, defying God, law and nature, has opened hostilities against me… At a time when I was attempting to rein in the heretics, he has gone to war with me, without challenge or warning, in support of heresy.” (Ibid, p. 550)

Cardinal Richelieu – and this would have to apply to King Louis XIII, who allowed him to do it – is a figure so evil and dreadful that he could probably be considered one of the most evil men in Church history. Some speculate that Pope Urban VIII didn’t excommunicate Richelieu because he feared that Richelieu would take France into schism, as King Henry VIII did with England. The truth is that Pope Urban VIII should have excommunicated him, and he should have threatened King Louis XIII of France with excommunication if he didn’t remove Richelieu as prime minister, and if he didn’t stop funding heretical armies who were rooting out the Faith of countless Catholics in Europe.

Cardinal Richelieu also funded Protestant Sweden, which was fighting Catholics in various places in Europe.

“… the reunion of Germany under Catholic leadership was rendered forever impossible by his [Cardinal Richelieu’s] intervention, as Richelieu intended. The leadership and the victories in battle were Gustav Adolf [of Sweden]; but the money to pay for them came from a prince of the Church, the cardinal who betrayed Christendom.” [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 527.]

So, to answer your question, I don’t think that Richelieu was a conspirator, just an extremely wicked man who cared about political ambition and nothing for the Catholic Faith. Assuming he died unrepentant – and there is no evidence that he did repent – he is now suffering in Hell the hideous torments which he brought upon himself for betraying the Church. These excruciating torments are probably multiplied by every Catholic whose attempt to practice the true Faith was made exceedingly difficult in the countries he helped Protestants takeover.

Confused about B-16

I have looked at the artilcles on your website and am a little confused.

Why is it bad that the current pope does not believe christians should consider the pope as the supreme leader in regards to the chiristian
religion?

MHFM: It’s bad because it’s a dogma of the Catholic Faith that a pope (the successor of St. Peter), by the institution of Jesus Christ (Mt. 16-18-20; John 21:15-17), is the head of the Christian Church with supreme jurisdiction over the universal Christian Church.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Denz. 1826-1827)

Thus, when Benedict XVI teaches that other “Christians” don’t need to consider a pope as the visible head of the Christian religion on Earth, he is expressly denying Catholic dogma. This alone proves that Benedict XVI is a heretic against Catholic dogma. A heretic against Catholic dogma cannot be a true pope.

Powerful conversion story from New Zealand

Dear Dimond Brothers

A few weeks ago I wrote to you a number of times accusing you of being in serious error in your interpretation of church teaching, and of bad faith in the propagation of that interpretation. You replied, warning me that I was placing my soul in peril by criticising the church in this way. You pointed out that I was guilty of intellectual pride and that my habit of repeatedly visiting your website indicated that, deep down, I knew what you were saying was true.

That got me thinking. I began to feel guilty about my attacks on you. I struggled with my conscience for several days and nights until, finally, I decided to look more deeply into what you had to say. I approached a friend who had a high-speed broadband connection and asked if I could use his computer to view some of your videos.

After watching just two of them, I was overcome with grief and remorse. The first one I watched was the exorcism video. At first it seemed to be just a scripted performance, but then I heard the priest say "Does Satan exist?" and in a blood-curdling shriek I heard the answer of the possessed: YES! This was unsettling enough, but then I moved on to perhaps the best-known of your videos - Death and the Journey into Hell.

This was the one that clinched it for me. The vivid images of dead bodies, of gravesites, of headstones, of row after row of suburban houses, added to your compelling voiceover reminding us again and again that we will all die someday and our bodies will rot and decay and return to nothing but dust, moved me deeply.

I am now ready to accept the church's teaching fully. I live in New Zealand. Please tell me what I need to do.

Yours in Jesus Mary & Joseph

Alan Vincent

Bi-Ritual “priests” in TN

Hello,

I have just ordered some materials from your site.

On the very day I read your "Where to go to Mass or Confession?" section, I received a copy of our local diocesan newspaper. It provided some startling new information regarding bi-ritual priests being introduced to our State.

I was wondering if you could offer an opinion, in general terms, regarding the validity of the forthcoming Rites mentioned in this article.

http://www.dioceseofnashville.com/tnregister.pdf

Many of us residing in Middle Tennessee have been unable to access a valid Mass for quite a duration. Upon reading the aforementioned article, we are guardedly optimistic the cure of the diocese could be an answer to our prayers. However, your viewpoint regarding its validity would be most welcome and appreciated.

Thank You,

Christina Williams-Triana

Smyrna, TN

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail. The particular “priests” in question would almost certainly be invalid because they are diocesan “priests” almost certainly ordained after 1968 in the invalid rite of Paul VI. Thus, even if they celebrated the traditional Byzantine liturgy, it would not be valid. The priests who were ordained in the Eastern Rite, however, would be valid.

St. Hilary on the Antichrist

Dear Brothers,

I was browsing through a copy of the Abbe de Nantes "Liber Accusationis Secundus" and found this interesting quote he attributes to St. Hilary of Poitiers:

"Again, heed this advice: Beware of Antichrist! With the excuse of peace and concord you make your way to church. You do wrong to love
the walls so much and to respect the Church in her buildings. Can you doubt that one day Antichrist must needs be seated in the same places?"

He says that is from a letter against the Arian Auxentius. I was unable to find a copy of the actual letter to verify it, but have no reason to
doubt the Abbe, even though, as far as I know, he's still bowing to the antichrists in the Vatican.

God Bless,
LM

Contradiction?

I have been reading through your website. Would you please explain this inconsistency to me? On the one hand you encourage people to purchase certain books listed below from TAN Books and you even provide a phone number. Then you add that you don't recommend all their books because some are heretical.

But then you state that someone can go to the Mass of a priest who teaches heresy (as long as he isn't "notorious" or "imposing" about his heresy) but you cannot support him or his chapel.

How consistent are you by stating that it is wrong to support a priest who espouses a heretical position, but it is perfectly okay to support a book publisher who sells and distributes heretical books to thousands of people and has a likelihood to disseminate heresy to a much greater audience?…My closing comments: I would be interested in reading how you explain the above contradiction in your position, i.e., that it is perfectly acceptable to support a publisher who spreads heresy (but who also has some good points) but it is not acceptable to support a priest that spreads heresy (but who also has some good points).

I thank you in advance for your response.

John C. Gorka

Chesterland, OH

MHFM: It's quite obvious to any logical and honest person that there is no contradiction. We said you could purchase books from Tan, just like you could purchase food at your local grocery store. But you cannot donate money to Tan, just like you cannot donate money to a heretical priest. It's quite simple and quite obvious.

There is no inconsistency at all. In fact, if we were to accept the premise of your argument, namely, that a purchase from someone is equivalent to a donation, then one could never buy food at the grocery store; for that provides the store with money which enables it to further disseminate the scandalous magazines and books it sells. But of course there is a difference between buying something one needs or can use or can benefit from, and donating money as a free gift to a heretical or non-Catholic source.

Using the power of excommunication

“In late October 1605 [Pope] Paul V decided to challenge new laws in the immemorially Catholic state of Venice prohibiting the sale, gifts, or even building of a church, monastery, hospital or other Church structure without the consent of the Senate of Venice, and prohibiting the disciplining of Venetian clergy by Church courts without the Senate’s consent. Pope Paul V sent a formal rebuke for approving these laws to Doge Grimani, who was dying. The rebuke was therefore not delivered to him, but to his successor Doge Donato, already an ‘avowed enemy’ of the Pope’s authority in the Church. When Donato would not yield, the Pope excommunicated him and the entire government of Venice, and put the city under interdict.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 487.)

Divine Mercy

Hello! Your work is extraordinary! Thank you! Without understanding I was lead to discontinue the use of the Chaplet of Mercy several years ago. I had tried to read her diary, but found it difficult and tedious. Anyway, your article about the chaplet was very helpful, I especially liked the connection you made to the undermining of Our Lady of Fatima's request; and the suggestion to say the Stations of the Cross instead. I wondered if Faustina's "god of mercy" is the same god of islam who will judge us at the end of the world?...

Cordially,
Mary

No heretic King

MHFM: As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, understanding the Catholic concept that a heretic holds no authority in the Church is crucial for a proper understanding of the Catholic situation today. It’s very interesting to note that, in line with the concept that a person outside the Church cannot command in the Church, the Church also declared at certain times in history that heretical kings couldn’t hold civil authority in Catholic countries. Of course, there is not always a strict incompatibility in holding civil authority over Catholics while being outside the Church as there is with the idea that one can rule in the Church while being outside of it; but since relations between Church and State in Catholic countries were so intimate, the Church sometimes declared that a heretic cannot be the king:

“The straightforward Pope Sixtus V took the Treaty of Nemours at face value, as a commitment of the king with the Catholic nobility and people of France to preserve the Faith and eliminate heresy, and so followed it up on September 21 [1585] with the formal excommunication of Henry of Navarre, absolving his subjects present or future from all allegiance to him, and declaring that no heretic could ever be recognized as king of France (a law which most countries of Christendom already had on their books, though it was evidently not being enforced in the Protestant countries).” [Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 (The Cleaving of Christendom), p. 434.]

All of this shows us again how quickly someone such as Pope Sixtus V would denounce as absurd the idea Benedict XVI – a man who became a Muslim and likes to go to synagogues and schismatic churches – would be considered the pope with authority over the universal Church.

By the way, some people think that we’re too hard with some of the things that we say. Well, here are some of the things that Pope Sixtus V did:

“On the very next day after his election the new pope [Sixtus V] showed his decisive, hard-hitting character. Crime had gone out of control in the papal states in Gregory XIII’s enfeebled last years. Brigands and highwaymen infested the countryside. Pope Sixtus V told his cardinals entrusted with keeping public order, his military commanders and his chief barons that he would hold them personally responsible for suppressing crime and administering justice. If they failed, he would execute the generals and the barons and lock up the cardinals in the prison cells of Rome’s impregnable fortress, the Castel Sant’Angelo.

“Ten days later he led a procession through the streets of Rome to take formal possession of the Church of St. John Lateran, but did not hold the customary banquet on this occasion, ‘on account of the miserable state of the population.’… In July he assigned two experienced bishops to make a formal visitation of every parish and college in Rome… He began almost at once moving [and he put a Cross on top of] the old pagan obelisk which had stood at the center of the Circus Maximus, where St. Peter and so many other Christians had been martyred by the Emperor Nero, to the magnificent courtyard of the new St. Peter’s, now nearing completion. In January 1586 he issued a vigorous condemnation of astrology, the most influential and widely believed superstition of that age.” (Ibid, p. 407.)

New spiritual books

MHFM: We’re selling some new spiritual books. See the book section of our online store for some of the items: New books.

Liberius, book, chapel

Dear Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

There were about 8 people last week in a restaurant discussing the Bible. I overheard them and asked if they would like the Padre Pio book and the dvd with Journey into hell, etc. and then I talked to them about Catholicism and the Counterfeit Church, etc. They asked if I would join them, and I told them to watch the video's and I'll join them next week. I was going to ask, any advice, but just received your new book. It's great! It will be just the book to bring.

Also, after just starting to read your book, specifically in the table of contents (Chap 21):

Obj. Pope Liberius gave into the Arian heretics and excommuniated St. Athanasius: yet he remained the Pope.

Answer: According to Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Anastasius, Liberius was falsely accused by the Arians and remained faithful to Catholic teaching.

In the Church bulletin (March 18th) of Father Carley's Chapel in Akron, Ohio, there is an article on St. Athanasius and the Fourth Century Catholics. Here are parts:

..."Pope Liberius to his credit stood firm and was sent off into exile, but there under threats, tortures and sufferings conceded to the compromise and excommunication of St. Athanasius. The Semi-Arian formula of the Creed which the pope accepted was not heretical though it was ambiguous and could be interpreted in an heretical way, a compromise with the truth which was to bring even greater sufferings upon the faithful Catholics, for now the Arians could claim a great victory with the Pope back on the throne of Peter. A Pope with whom they could claim communion yet hold their Arian doctrine. Those who remained faithful were now open to even greater persecution, branded and ostracized by those very bishoops still officially in communion with the Pope."

"...Such was the predicament of these fourth century Catholics, to find themselves at odds with their parish priests, the bishops and even the Pope;...".

- Nancy Battle

New out of the Novus Ordo

Greetings,

I came across your website earlier this year while browsing the internet. I used to attend The Novus Ordo Mass on a regular basis. The more I attended, the more something was telling me that things are not as they are meant to be. Over the last year I have investigated the Novus Ordo Mass and I realized this is not the mass. Upon reading literature, and websites such as your own I know now what I wish I had years ago. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful to convince others that the Novus Ordo Mass is not the Mass and have cited examples, but to no avail. Many say, no matter what reference I cite such as from The Anti-Popes benedict XVI and JP2, that they are the supreme pontiff and thus infallible.

Even if benedict has 'Deep Respect' for and holds 'high esteem' of the Islamic faith, they claim he is infallible or that they see no wrong in him trying to create dialog with these heretical religions. Many say that there is nothing wrong with him contributing and promoting the distribution of the Koran. I utterly cannot fathom how they do not realize that is contradiction to the Catholic Faith. In addition, I have been told by many Modern Catholics that I should not quote from the Bible since you cannot take it as literal. Admittedly I am not a great speaker nor well versed in The True Catholic Faith, but what I know is The Novus Ordo Mass is not a Catholic Mass. another example, Eastern Rite supporter claim that their Mass is valid without 'Mysterium Fidei' and that they contain the 4 marks. I would very much appreciate any advice you can offer.

Respectfully and God+ Bless,

Dipak.

MHFM: Dipak, it’s great to hear about your interest. God was definitely giving you the graces to see that the New Mass is not of God and that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. Our material covers the “mysterium fidei” issue. There is a discussion of it in our new book. I would recommend that you consult that. The bottom-line is that the New Mass is definitely invalid because “for all” doesn’t signify the union of the faithful with Christ, which is the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Heresy before Vatican II

I was unable to sleep last night and found myself up until 4:30 this morning. I was looking on my bookshelf and found this old small book that was reprinted by Tan Books. It was originally published in 1917. The book is, Is There Salvation Outside The Catholic Church? by Fr. J. Bainvel S. J., and translated by Fr. J. L.Weidenhan, S.T.L. Knowing what I know on this topic, and realizing this book was written in 1917 I was curious as to what it might say. Upon skimming through the pages it took about 10 seconds to realize the heresies being promoted at that time.

As he tries to explain that there is no salvation outside the Church, he teaches the visible Church and the invisible Church heresy; he teaches the belonging to the body of the Church compared to belonging to the soul of the Church heresy; he teaches baptism of blood and baptism of desire substitutes for water baptism heresy; he teaches the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation as a necessity of means, then says that is only under the "normal means", but that in God's Providence salvation can come outside of that, (which really means this priest believes God commands the impossible - which we know is itself impossible).

What I found to be relevant in this regard is most "Traditional Catholics" will look at the date that a book is first published in order to determine its orthodoxy. Many think that if it is from the 1950's or earlier it is probably okay. Well, here is a fine example of a book written in 1917 full of heresy.

MHFM: Yes, you are correct. A body of bishops and priests which eventually went along with the explosion of apostasy after Vatican II into a full-blown Counter Church didn’t become heretical, apostate and in favor of religious indifferentism overnight. That’s why in our book on the salvation dogma there is a section called “Heresy Before Vatican II.” Even though Vatican II represented the outward explosion and the formation of the Counter Church, the loss of faith among the clergy began in the decades leading up to Vatican II. It began with the denial of the necessity of the Catholic Church and baptism for salvation, as taught in disgustingly heretical books such as the one you have mentioned, and also by priests such as Fr. Denis Fahey, who taught that Jews who reject Christ can be saved. By the way, if anything is an example of one’s yes not being yes and one’s no not being no, it’s the heretical book you have mentioned.

Comment on new book

I just received your new book. It’s marvellous, remarkable, outstanding. I couldn’t stop reading it. I want to order two copies to be sent to my friends.

Cecilia Buse

Surprise, Arizona

Money Masters, where?

MHFM: Some people have called us asking where the link to The Money Masters video has gone. It’s permanently located on the watch our videos page: Click here to Watch Our Videos/DVDs Online for free! The Money Masters is the last one down before the audios.

New Book

The new book is perfect for those who really want to know why I left the NO church. I can just hand them a copy and tell them "It's all in here and I bet you can't find one thing in here you can refute."

Pauline Moulder

Convert

My dad was a Protestant preacher. He watched the Death, and the Journey Into Hell DVD and he immediately converted to the Catholic faith. He has now become a true traditional Catholic.

Justin Prescott

Sugarland, TX

Free Color order forms

MHFM: If anyone would like free extra copies of our color order form, please call us at 1-800-275-1126.

St. Joseph of Copertino and a Lutheran

MHFM: St. Joseph of Copertino was an extraordinary 17^th century Franciscan saint. He was known for his ecstatic flights or levitations. One time, out of curiosity, a Lutheran prince named John Frederick, the Duke of Brunswick, came to his Mass with some companions.

“The saint [Joseph of Copertino], who was not informed of their presence, was made aware of it when about to break the sacred host, which he found so hard, that, in spite of all his efforts, he could not break it, but had to replace it on the paten. Fixing his eyes upon the host, he wept and with a loud cry rose in kneeling posture about five paces into the air. With another cry he returned after some time to the altar and broke the sacred host, though with great effort. At the instance of the Duke, the Father Superior asked him why he had wept, and he replied: ‘My dear compatriot, the persons whom you sent to my Mass this morning, have a hard heart; for they do not believe all that Holy Mother Church teaches, and therefore the Lamb of God was hardened in my hands so that I could not break the sacred host.’ The Duke, astonished at this occurrence, deferred his departure in order to consult with the servant of God.” (Fr. Angelo Pastrovicchi, St. Joseph of Copertino, Tan Books, p. 43.)

The Duke was eventually converted to the Catholic Faith.

Divine Mercy

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter Dimond,

Is the devotion to the "Divine Mercy" initiated by Maria Faustina a valid devotion? Thank you again, for your GOD-FILLED work.

Sincerely

PETER de NIESE

Melbourne, AUSTRALIA.

p.s. I searched your 'Selected Questions & Answers' section, but could not find this topic. May i suggest that you add your answer to this section.

MHFM: The article on why Catholics should avoid the Divine Mercy Devotion is found it the Recent Articles section of our website. It’s also found in our new book.

New Flyers

We are now offering some new 11 x 17 flyers. One is on the heresies of Benedict XVI and one is on the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. The flyers are obviously not nearly as complete, interesting or effective as the books we have on these topics, which we encourage people to get, but they are handy for introducing people to these issues in a lightweight and easy-to-distribute format. If the type seems small, that’s because we tried to pack as much information as we could on the two pages of the flyer.

New Flyer on Benedict XVI New Flyer on Outside the Church There is No Salvation

Episcopalian at Novus Ordo high school

Venerable and Dear Brother,

I am a high school junior who attends [x] School in Pennsylvania. On Thursday this institution that I attend will host the "progressive Episcopalian" Bishop John Shelby Spong, this is the man who purports that God is not theistic and has been called a non-Christian by other supposed Protestants. It is my hope to confront this man but, although I have pondered some questions I might ask of him, I am sure that you would be vastly more capable of constructing questions and arguments for this "Bishop" than I could be. Thus I write to you in hope that you may provide me some information on Spong or any edifying questions or points of contention. I hope to video tape my questioning of Spong and to be able to share the footage with MHFM and other Catholic outlets. Regretfully, Spong's visit to the institution of learning that I attend will be on Thursday and I was only apprised of this fact today; hence I must be brisk in preparing questions for Spong.
Thank You,

[name of person and school removed at his request]

Post Scriptum: I thank you for the charitable amount of additional literature and DVDs you sent for free with OTCCTIANS; the list of John Paul's heresies has proven itself invaluably helpful in impromptu debate.

MHFM: The first question I would ask him would be how can he be part of a “Church” which only came into existence in the 16th century after King Henry VIII decided to break away from the Catholic Church because the pope refused to grant him the annulment of his marriage which he so desperately wanted? Could any arrangement be more obviously man-made?

Masonic Legislation

Greeting MHFM

Here is some interesting info on pending legislation in the US house.

www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-33

God Bless,

Robert Blascyk

MHFM: That’s very interesting, especially the House Resolution number: 33. It just so happens that it’s called House Resolution #33, when there are exactly 33 degrees in Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

What to do?

Hello,

I am a devout Catholic. I attend Mass 3 to 4 times daily. After reading your web site, I am confused and troubled. Are you telling me that I have not been going to Mass and receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ? I am 47 years old and have never been to a Latin or Traditional old Mass. Please, what am I to do?

Don McEvoy

MHFM: That's correct. The New Mass is invalid. It is a non-Catholic service, with an invalid form of consecration. It was invented to Protestantize the Catholic Mass. We would recommend that you obtain our new book and DVD special. They explain all of this and give all of the documentation. We also have a section on our website for what people should do; that section explains that one must make a confession to a validly ordained priest for having attended a non-Catholic service, the New Mass, for however long one attended, about making a general confession (since priests ordained in the New Rite are invalid), etc. You can also call us at 1-800-275-1126 and we can answer that question about where to go to Mass in more detail and help you with possible Mass locations. But a person must avoid the New Mass under pain of mortal sin and extricate himself from the Vatican II sect. One should also pray the Rosary every day.

John XXIII revealed that he was a Jew?

MHFM: As we said, from time to time we will be posting just a few of the many new quotes and points that are found in our new book, even in those sections where some of the information has been covered on our DVDs, such as on the heresies of Benedict XVI. (There are, of course, many new sections in the book which we have never covered before.) The short analysis below is something that is new to the section on John XXIII. It concerns John XXIII’s oft-quoted and very mysterious statement to the Jews: “I am Joseph your brother.” We were, like so many others, always quite puzzled about what this strange statement to Jews by John XXIII meant. We believe that the points below shed light on its meaning. What we want to emphasize is that there is no doubt that John XXIII said this to Jews. In the book, we cite as our source for this statement a document that was published by the American “bishops.” John XXIII’s statement to the Jews, “I am Joseph, your brother,” is so well known and well documented that, in a discussion of Vatican II and post-Vatican II new relationships with Jews, one of the most prominent things mentioned is this mysterious statement by John XXIII.

JOHN XXIII REVEALED THAT HE WAS A JEW?

John XXIII once greeted some Jewish visitors with the words, "I am Joseph, your brother."[39] Even though this very mysterious statement of John XXIII to Jews has been quoted frequently, the significance has not yet been explained. We believe there is a good explanation of its significance: This statement by John XXIII, “I am Joseph, your brother,” is a quotation from Genesis 45:4.

[Genesis 45:4-5- And he said mildly to them: Come nearer to me. And when they were come near him, he said: I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. Be not afraid, and let it not seem to you a hard case that you sold me into these countries: for God sent me before you into Egypt for your preservation.]

It was made by the patriarch Joseph, the son of Jacob, to his brothers when they came into Egypt during the time of famine. Those familiar with the Biblical account know that Joseph had been sold into slavery by his brothers many years before, but had risen to the highest position in the kingdom of Egypt (even though he wasn’t one of them) because he had successfully interpreted Pharao’s dream. Since he had risen to the highest position in the kingdom of the Egyptians, he was free to dispense the treasures of the kingdom at his pleasure – e.g., to his brothers. He gave plentifully to his brothers at no charge.

When we consider the evidence that John XXIII was a Freemason, that John XXIII began the process of revolution against the Catholic Church at Vatican II, and that John XXIII’s “pontificate” initiated the new revolutionary attitude toward Jews, among other things, the meaning of his statement to the Jews becomes clear. Just as Joseph, who was not one of the Egyptians, found himself entrenched at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy of the Egyptians and revealed this to his brothers with the statement “I am Joseph, your brother,” John XXIII told the Jews that he is “Joseph, your brother” because he was actually a Jewish infiltrator entrenched at the very highest position in the hierarchy of the Christians (or so it appeared). It was John XXIII’s cryptic way of revealing what he really was: a conspiratorial antipope at the service of the Church’s enemies.

SSPX/FSSP

Dear Reverends

Some years ago the in-charge of the SSPX chapel in Singapore removed the so-called Feeneyites from the chapel. Recently, certain members of the chapel tried to stage a coup in favor of the St Peter's Society. Do you consider this to have been necessary since St Peter's as well believes in salvation outside the Catholic Church?

Yours etc
SF

MHFM: Well, even though both groups believe that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved, there are significant differences on other issues. The Fraternity of St. Peter holds that everyone should operate in working communion with the Vatican II sect, its antipopes and its apostate bishops. It also holds that Vatican II, being the official teaching of the Church, is without doctrinal error. The SSPX criticizes some parts of Vatican II’s official teaching. And the SSPX obviously holds that people should be independent of the Vatican II sect because working in full communion with it presupposes a compromise with the new religion. Thus, it makes sense (not from the standpoint of truth, but from the standpoint of the heretical premise which they are working from) that some of the heretical supporters of the Fraternity of St. Peter (or of the Indult position) would want to extirpate the independent mentality of the SSPX. It’s interesting that you mention a “coup” at an SSPX chapel. In certain cases, there is no doubt that FSSP or Indult position supporters have tried to infiltrate various independent chapels and get legal control of them by deceptive means in order to bring these independent Latin Mass chapels into the full power of the Counter Church. These people are instruments of the Devil.

An extraordinary saint

MHFM: St. Francis of Paola is one of the most extraordinary saints in the history of the Church, yet very little is known about him in the English-speaking world. He is called the wonder-worker and “God’s miracle worker supreme” because of the staggering number of miracles that he worked. One interesting example deals with his pet lamb, Martinello:

“Being in need of food, the workmen caught and slaughtered Francis’ pet lamb, Martinello, roasting it in their lime kiln. They were eating when the saint approached them, looking for his lamb. They told him they had eaten it, having no other food. He asked what they had done with the fleece and the bones. They told him they had thrown them into the furnace. Francis walked over to the furnace, looked into the fire and called ‘Martinello, come out!’ The lamb jumped out, completely untouched, bleating happily on seeing his master.” (St. Francis of Paola by Simi & Segreti, Tan Books, p. 26.)

How to Pray the Rosary

Can you please tell me how to pray the 15 decade rosary. Do you accept the mysteries of light?

MHFM: No, we don’t accept the Mysteries of Light. In the Catholic Church, the Rosary has 15 mysteries: five joyful, five sorrowful and five glorious. It was Antipope John Paul II who added the Mysteries of Light. Here’s an address where you can see online how to pray the Rosary: http://www.pacifier.com/~rosarweb/howto.htm

Since the group providing the illustration on how to pray the Rosary is a Novus Ordo group, they list the Mysteries of Light with their instructions on how to pray the Rosary. Those should be ignored.

Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucia told Father Fuentes in a famous 1957 interview:

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio

Also seeking reference to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio that was made in the VCI Declaration on Papal Infallibility. Do you know where this
citation is made in that declaration? This would be very helpful. Many thanks

Patricia Culver

MHFM:The Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV – which declares that the election of a heretic to the Papacy is invalid – is not cited in Vatican Council I. It’s cited in the footnotes for canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. This canon declares that a cleric who publicly defects from the Faith loses his office without any declaration. In declaring that a publicly heretical cleric loses his office without any declaration, the 1917 Code makes reference to Cum ex apostolatus of Pope Paul IV because it authoritatively taught the same principle it was teaching in canon 188.4: a heretic cannot hold office in the Church and loses that office automatically.

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”

Money Masters video

The Money Masters - Part 1 (1 hr. 44 min. video)

The Money Masters - Part 2 (1 hr. 46 min.)

This a link to a fascinating and important two-part video presentation called: The Money Masters: how international bankers gained control over America. On this topic there is also the excellent lecture by G. Edward Griffin below. Some may find this lecture below better as an introduction to this topic. It is certainly powerful and frightening, though it doesn’t cover the history and many other important points covered in the money masters. Both of them are worth watching/listening to.

The Creature from Jekyll Island: Audio Lecture on the Federal Reserve (1 hr. 13 min. audio) – need a real player for this one

"G. Edward Griffin exposes the most blatant scam of all history. It’s all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. It's just exactly what every American needs to know about the power of the central bank."

While these excellent presentations obviously don’t deal with a strictly spiritual topic, and therefore are not necessary to know for salvation as the spiritual truths are, they are definitely worth watching. This issue has also been addressed by popes, as we will see below. The Money Masters video and The Creature from Jekyll Island audio expose the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System – and this is sure to be a shock and even a jaw-dropper to those unfamiliar with some of this information – is actually a private bank that creates America’s money out of nothing and charges interest on top of it! It constitutes one of the biggest secular scams in all of history. (By the way, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, is Jewish. The current chairman, Ben Bernanke, is also Jewish.) This private bank, deceptively called the Federal Reserve System, essentially runs America; and the money masters have used their power, influence and deceit to get the leaders of other countries to accept similar arrangements. The video quotes many prominent politicians who admit that the international bankers constitute an invisible government; these politicians also admit that the bankers control the majority of newspapers.

As The Money Masters video presentation so effectively shows, understanding the money masters and how they gained control of the world’s finance is the key to understanding major events in American history. It uncovers the real reason for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, President Garfield, etc. It also covers the rise of the Jewish Rothschild banking dynasty, the most powerful family in the world, and the incredible way that it came to take control of England’s central bank. The Rothschild family was said to hold half of the wealth of the world by the end of the 19^th century. This corresponds to the assessment of Pope Pius XI.

Pope Pius XI, Caritate Christi compulsi (#3), May 3, 1932: “… the wealth of nations is heaped up in the hands of a very few private men, who – as We warned you last year, in Our Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno – control the trade of the whole world at their will, thereby doing immense harm to the people.”

This video presentation reveals that, since the money masters have such power over the money supply, they can create wars and depressions (the latter by tightening the money supply). These created recessions and depressions are used to threaten and/or punish governments if they resist the international bankers aims to take control of their money supply. In other words, they are used to get countries to submit to the central-bank-in-private-hands system. The quotations from Pius XI above and below confirm the accuracy of the message contained in The Money Masters.

Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno (#106), May 15, 1935: “This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.”

These presentations are not only a history lesson, but will change the way one looks at the world. These links and descriptions have been added to the “Watch our videos page” on our website.

Reader on Money control video

MHFM- The documentary on money is awesome. Why have you chosen to remove it? At least mention the film and author on the Jewish Control Watch page. I feel lucky that I saw it on your video page. Who was the author so I may finish watching the second part?

Rob

MHFM: We just temporarily took it down because we wanted to add a description and modify a link. As the E-Exchange above shows, the link is back up.

Likes website

Your material and website is the very best! Thank you!!

Linda Collins

New quote

MHFM: From time to time we will be posting just a few of the many new quotes that are found in our new book, even in those sections where some of the information has been covered on our DVDs, such as on the heresies of Benedict XVI. (There are, of course, many new sections in the book which we have never covered before.) The quote below from one of Pope Pius XII’s encyclicals, regarding what St. Benedict did to a pagan worship site, was a new find we came across which happened to fit very nicely into the section of the book refuting Benedict XVI’s heresy on “Christian hotheads.” Even though Pius XII is quoting Pope St. Gregory the Great’s traditional account, the fact that he included this portion of it in an encyclical helps to further establish the difference between the two religions (i.e., the difference between the false religion of Benedict XVI and the true Catholic religion of all the popes and saints in history). [Endnote references are found in the book].

BENEDICT XVI CRITICIZES AS “HOTHEADS” THOSE WHO DESTROYED PAGAN TEMPLES

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”

Those “hotheads” whom he criticizes would include St. Francis Xavier and St. Benedict.

St. Francis Xavier [regarding the heathen children he had converted to the Catholic faith, +1543): “These children… show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for our holy religion and imparting it to others. Their hatred for idolatry is marvelous. They get into feuds with the heathens about it… The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.”

St. Benedict overthrew a pagan altar and burned the groves dedicated to Apollo when he first arrived at Mount Cassino:

Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Radiatur (# 11), March 21, 1947: “… he [St. Benedict] went south and arrived at a fort ‘called Cassino situated on the side of a high mountain; on this stood an old temple where Apollo was worshipped by the foolish country people, according to the custom of the ancient heathens. Around it likewise grew groves, in which even till that time the mad multitude of infidels used to offer their idolatrous sacrifices. The man of God coming to that place broke the idol, overthrew the altar, burned the groves, and of the temple of Apollo made a chapel of St. Martin. Where the profane altar had stood he built a chapel of St. John; and by continual preaching he converted many of the people thereabout.’”

Book Pictures

Dear Brothers,

I've ordered 2 copies of the book, after reading the entire table of contents. I hope it reaches many readers and I will help, after I've read
the book.

Just one thing; I think it's unfortunate that you chose pictures of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in which their expressions appear to be
so -- what word, unflattering is not appropriate, though they are that. Misleading is a possible choice. An expression photographed at the wrong
angle, or at a bad time, can give a false, as well as a true, picture. One would think that you wish to portray them as sinister, or violent, etc. They may be truly evil, but only God can make that judgment. Their actions and words have certainly given grounds for questioning their intentions, but neither is in a position to answer your conclusions as to their intentions. It would be interesting to hear Pope Benedict's responses.

Nevertheless, what you have presented regarding the teachings of theChurch seems to be completely accurate.

While it's probably too late to do anything to make a change of photos(should you wish to), I feel it would be to your credit if you had chosen photos in which the Popes had ordinary, or neutral expressions. Your intention was quite obvious and, I think, is beneath you. Let their words and actions speak for themselves.

Sincerely,

Virginia Schultz

MHFM: Virginia, one doesn’t have to look very far to find pictures of the Vatican II antipopes in which they appear sinister or evil. That’s simply because, as the book documents in great detail, their words and actions reveal their true intentions and sinister designs. The facts in the book (over 1,700 references, 658 pages in 46 sections), as well as the many revealing photographs (such as those of false ecumenism, etc.), certainly speak for themselves about what they represent. Once it is in their hands, we feel that sincere people who examine the evidence in it will definitely agree.

Readers on Jewish power updates; our view of how it became such

Hi,

Very interesting articles. It is sad that things have gotten so bad, sometimes I wonder why this world continues to exist as evil as it is. It is indeed a miracle that this country still exists due to the amount of evil that it has spread around the globe.

It is amazes me at the power of the Jews. They have control over almost every facet of human life. They are the entertainment, the news, the transportation, the religion, and a whole host of human life. It is indeed very saddening that we are free to do evil and immorality but not free to be holy. They have made it to where we may have a menorah up during advent but not the Holy Family.

And if that is not enough most "traditionals" are not even Catholic and don't even bother to try. The story about Bella Dodd is most interesting and I think that it helps to explain how the Catholic Church has ended up in the terrible position that it is in. I found it so interesting, that I could not help but spread it around, so I copied and pasted it into a public forum, is this ok? The News and Commentary is a very good section of your website and is very informative regarding the things that are going on in our world… I have been able to restore the sound on my computer, thus, I now have the capability of listening to your awesome radio programs.

God Bless. Na p

----

Dear Brothers:

I read your website not only for your theological insights, but for your heroic opposition to Jewish power and establishment "history." I found an interesting quote from St. Augustine. He is commenting on St. Matthew 24, verse 21: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Here is the quote: "And so Josephus, who wrote the Jewish History, relates evils so great happening to this people as to seem hardly credible. Whence it was not unreasonably said, that such tribulation had never been from the beginning of creation, nor should be; for though in the time of Antichrist shall be such, or perhaps greater; yet to the Jews, of whom we must understand this, such shall never more befall. For if they shall be the first and the chief to receive Antichrist, they will then rather inflict than suffer the tribulation." [emphasis mine].--St. Augustine, quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea, St. Matthew, p. 812.

Augustine is saying that the greatest instance of Jewish suffering occurred during the siege and sack of Jerusalem (67-70 AD), and that there will never occur an instance of Jewish suffering to equal or surpass this. But, of course, if the official version of "the Holocaust" is true (6 million deliberately miurdered, gas chambers, lampshades of human skin, etc.) then the Jewish sufferings of 1939-45 have far surpassed those of the siege and sack of Jerusalem, and the scripture (or St. Augustine's interpretation of it) would be false.

But, as we know, it is the Jews who are in error, and not the scriptures or St. Augustine. May God help us all in this age of Judaic power. They are all set receive Antichrist, and indeed, they may have already received him.

Sincerely, Christopher Albrecht

MHFM: Some of our readers probably wonder: how have the Jews (only 2% of the American population) come to have such a domination over the media, the culture, American foreign policy, etc.? Before answering this question, we reiterate, once again: we condemn all forms of racism; we desire the conversion and eternal happiness of all Jews. Jews frequently make tremendous, and even the best, converts. (The 19^th century conversion story of the Jew Alphonse Ratisbonne is quite moving and something Catholics should familiarize themselves with.) Not everything we say about Jewish power applies to all Jews. Some Jews are certainly more reasonable than others, but all of them are outside the Church and in need of conversion and baptism for salvation. That being said, Jewish power and its attempts to corrupt culture, obliterate the name of Christ and make criminals out of Bible-believing Catholics must be exposed.

So, to get back to answering the question, how have the Jews, such a relatively small number of people, come to such power? We believe that there are two reasons. First, while some Jews would like to persuade themselves that it’s because Jews are naturally more talented and intelligent, the answer, we believe, is found elsewhere. As Ted Pike’s video The Other Israel shows, the Jewish “holy book,” the Talmud, looks upon non-Jews as animals. Thus, the “sacred” literature of the Jews teaches them to consider themselves as an elite race, approaching the manifestation of God Himself. While not all Jews hold or even know about the racist propaganda contained in the Talmud, of course, it’s true that a great majority of them have imbibed a certain form or degree of elitism from their parents: an elevated view of themselves and their fellow Jews, which causes them to make their Jewish lineage the center of their lives. We see an effective illustration of this fact among the Jewish “converts” to the Novus Ordo sect, such as those featured on EWTN. Even after supposedly having come to accept Christ, these “converts” still want to make their Jewishness the center of their “Catholicism.” Take, for an example, the “Association of Hebrew Catholics.” They are too proud to really, interiorly believe that Christ is the center, and that their past and their “heritage” is not. They need to retain their former Jewish identity as the center, because, in their blind pride, everything revolves around them and their elite view of themselves as “Jewish.” They are not true converts to Christ, and they sadly remain blind to the profound truth which St. Paul expressed:

Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This elitism of the Jews is why once a Jew gets control of a business or an organization, often there is a conscious effort to elevate mainly Jews (not necessarily those who practice Judaism, but those who are of the Jewish race). This can be easily seen by anyone who looks carefully at the staggering amount of Jewish names featured as authors in mainstream newspapers, as TV correspondents, etc.

The second reason that the Jews have come to such staggering power is found in Matthew 4. In our opinion, this is the main reason:

Matthew 4:8-10- “… the Devil took him [Jesus] up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Since the Jews did not accept Christ, they became the servants of the Devil. Since they refused to have the light, they become enveloped by darkness. Since they refused to accept the kingdom of God which, as Our Lord says, is within you (Luke 17:21) if you belong to Christ and which admits entrance into eternal life (where the home of the elect truly resides), they get a temporal kingdom, a kingdom on Earth. They get power in this world: “the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,” which the Devil can grant in this life to those who are on his side. This is really shown on the Money Masters series of videos, which exposes Jewish banking domination and the incredible way it came to fruition.

Frankly, a preternatural power is the only thing which can explain the ways that Jewish groups have the ability, the desire, the energy and the effectiveness to constantly organize, push, collude and branch out for the Jewish agenda, to make themselves the constant victims, the vigilantes against Christ and Christianity, the purveyors and defenders of filth and liberalism, etc., as shown on that Hate Laws video, or exemplified by Israel’s lobby or any extensive exposé of Jewish media control. Again, all of this is very relevant today because we are currently at war in Iraq, and probably soon going to go to war in Iran, mainly for Jewish Israel – which, by the way, possesses weapons of mass destruction and doesn’t allow U.N. inspectors.

Liked Debate

Dear Brothers Michael and Peter,

I just listened to your debate with Mr. William Golle last night. I commend you both for defending the Catholic position on the Novus Ordo "NOpes." I thank you both for the wonderful work you do for the Holy Mother Church. Take care, and God bless you.

In Christ,

Michael McBee

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you liked it.

Fatima-Convert

Dear Brothers,

"Thus saith the Lord: For three crimes of Damascus, and for four I will not convert it: because they have thrashed Galaad with iron wains."
Amos 1:3 (Douay)

The footnote says: "'I will not convert it.' That is, I will not spare them, nor turn away the punishments I design to inflict upon them."

That supports what you wrote about how the conversion of Russia in the Fatima message didn't mean "convert to the Catholic Faith."

Enjoy your work,
LM

MHFM: Good point. We feel that the facts brought forward in that article (The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia…), especially about the precise context in which Our Lady used the word “convert” in conjunction with what Our Lord said about the effects of the consecration of Russia, make it quite obvious that the position we have enunicated on that issue is correct.

Bella Dodd

MHFM: Someone recently wrote to us stating that Bella Dodd never spoke about the infiltration of the Catholic Church. (We have since lost her e-mail). This person said that the story of Bro. Joseph Natale (the founder of MHFM), that he heard Bella Dodd say things about the Communist infiltration of the Church, is false. Well, it just so happened that we recently received another letter from an older woman in the Bronx. Her letter is posted below. When this woman from the Bronx was young she heard Bella Dodd speak about the very same things that Bro. Joseph heard her speak about. This utterly refutes the claims of the woman mentioned above, who just so happens to be a particularly arrogant and sceptical person who also thinks that Fatima was a fraud. [It’s quite ironic that this person, who sees conspiracies behind almost every corner (Fatima, etc.), doesn’t believe that Bella Dodd spoke about a Communist conspiracy to infiltrate the Catholic Church.] Here is the letter we recently received, which refutes the sceptic and further corroborates what Bro. Joseph said:

Is it possible to get the Fall 1989 Issue of “Crying in the Wilderness” – Brother Joseph’s recollections of Bella Dodd? I would like to xerox it + pass it around. I was a young girl about 19 yrs when I heard Bella Dodd telling her story in a small Church in the Bronx – St. Angela Merici. What impressed me was her crying telling her story as she knew what would happen. I was truly convinced nothing could happen to the Roman Catholic Church. Her story should be told again. God bless + protect you all. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Peggy Deely, Bronx, NY

Liked Death and the Journey Into Hell video

… the “Death and the Journey Into Hell DVD.” It scared me and did more to force my solemn contemplation of Eternity and God’s Judgment than anything I ever saw. It is incredible.

H Benton

Liked Hate Laws video

Hi, I Just got finished watching the videos you have posted about the agenda of the ADL and the anti-speech laws. First I would like to say that they are great informative videos. They are trying to brain wash the world. There is much brain washing of this nature where I work.

I work for Fluor industrial services, they are an extremely large construction contractor who has many government accounts all around the world. I am currently working at an IBM facility where Fluor has a contract.

Every year Fluor’s employees are mandated to attend an anti-discrimination class. It is a brain washing class that teaches respect and tolerance for all people including but not limited to gays and atheist. It is basically a threat to our jobs and livelihood, they say that if any employee is found to be critical of the aforementioned and other ideas on and off the work site, he or she can be written up and even fired. They say that you can not even be accidentally overheard speaking in any way against anyone or any religion, even if it is just a joke. This anti-discrimination class not only threatens us but also trys to brain wash us so we will not have to worry about “offending” anyone. I figured this experience would be a good example of the brain washing of society. I do not remember if the ADL was mentioned or not, but I would not be surprised if it was, and the next mandatory class that I attend, I will pay closer attention or even ask to get a copy of the video we are forced to watch, I will send it if I get my hands on it.

Thanks

Davies

Dear MHFM

I just came across an article titled A Heretical Pope? by the late Michael Davies. I always thought M. Davies was a great Catholic writer. This article proves he was an idiot and that he worked very hard to maintain his idiocy. Or maybe he was just terribly confused. Just a sample: He says, "Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful...."

In other words, he admits that the Pope is a heretic, but he would have to be a really big heretic in order to qualify for deposition. Davies himself, through his writings, admits that the conciliar popes are the biggest, most notorious heretics in the history of the Catholic Church. I wonder how much worse they would have to get to qualify for deposition which Davies' insists, in this article, could never happen because providence would never allow it. Providing no documentation, Davies insists that the Church "...will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments."

Maybe Mr. Davies was just insane.

Re: the new book… Too bad we weren't taking pictures: of the (gay) priest who walked down the aisle with bunny ears on Easter Sunday; the African American Masses with drums and costumes… the seminarian in Benediction Robes boogyeing up the aisle the night before his ordination when he places the monstrance on the altar accompanied by loud rock music for an hour. Or the Mass (excuse me, "liturgy") where talking and experiencing the real presence of Christ in each other substitutes for Communion; people chatting and eating just inches away from a tabernacle placed next to a door; tight jeans and shorts worn by "Eucharistic Ministers"; giving "Holy Communion" to immodestly dressed women and openly gay women....the list is endless. No stone has been left unturned. My sister finally quit her job as Eucharistic minister on her own after a great deal of stress I caused her about it several years ago. She said she could no longer give Communion to the immodestly dressed women who approached her. Maybe she's ready for the new book and a video...

Again, God Bless

P. Moulder

MHFM: As we’ve pointed out in the article on our website, Davies was, unfortunately, a heretic. He definitely rejected the solemnly defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as we see in the quotation below.

Michael Davies, The Remnant, Sept. 15, 2001: “He would, presumably, agree with me that Jews who are convinced that the old covenant still prevails and are perfectly sincere and conscientious in their observance of the Jewish law can be saved.”

This demonstrates that Davies had no real supernatural faith in the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. He did not have any real interior submission to what Christ has revealed through His Church. If he did, he would have accepted the definition of the Council of Florence that all who die as Jews are lost. Moreover, anyone who studies his book, The Order of Melchisedech, knows that it advances argument after argument which proves that the New Rite of Ordination promulgated by Paul VI cannot be considered valid. Davies admits again and again that the New Rite follows the Anglican Rite in its pattern of deletion. (And the Anglican Rite was declared to be invalid by Pope Leo XIII precisely because of its pattern of deletion.) Here are just three examples:

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 83: “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 99: “As a final comment on the new Catholic ordinal, I would like to quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 94-95: “When the changes [to the Rite of Ordination] are considered as a whole it seems impossible to believe that any Catholic of integrity could deny that the parallel with Cranmer’s reform [the Anglican reform] is evident and alarming. It is quite obvious that there are powerful forces within the Catholic Church and the various Protestant denominations determined to achieve a common Ordinal at all costs… The sixteenth century Protestants changed the traditional Pontificals because they rejected the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood. Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium changed the Roman Pontifical in a manner which makes it appear that there is little or no difference between Catholic and Protestant belief, thus undermining Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII].”

But his conclusion was, amazingly, that the New Rite must be considered valid! He based his conclusion completely on his position that Paul VI was a valid pope. Of course, Paul VI could not have been an antipope, you see. This demonstrates the diabolical fog under which he was laboring. It’s sad to say, but the truth must be spoken: Davies, while he did some excellent research on the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination, was used as a tool of the Devil to mislead conservatives about the Liturgical Revolution: to convince them that the new liturgical rites of Mass and Ordination promulgated by Paul VI, though inferior and Protestantized, are still valid.

Reader on EWTN on omissions

Dear Brother:

Speaking of EWTN, yesterday morning I was watching their "Mass" and "Fr." Miguel Marie was the presider. His homily was about the Chair of Peter and the Pope being the head of the Church. Everything he said was ok until he started to talk about "Pope" Benedict XVI and how God has entrusted him to be the leader of the faithful, etc. What really turns me off about EWTN besides the fact that they are Novus Ordo is that they completely evade and ignore all the facts about the V2 antipopes. They pick out things that the antipopes say that may seem conservative or in-line with Catholic teaching but never make any mention of the heresies of the antipopes and the terrible acts of apostasy that they've committed. This morning I mailed a letter to "Fr." Miguel expressing my feelings about his evasive attitude about the antipopes. In the letter I also informed him about the Church's teaching that a heretic cannot be a valid Pope.

Alain Perrault

MHFM: Yes, that’s exactly right. They don’t even criticize them at all, not even for such things as kissing the Koran or going to the synagogue or going to the mosque. In this regard one thinks not only of the EWTN “priests,” but people like Scott Hahn, etc. They know very well that much of what the Vatican II antipopes have done is a betrayal of the basic teachings of Our Lord, but you won’t hear them even speak negatively about things they have done. These outrageous omissions are what will primarily convict them before the Judgment Seat of Christ. It’s utterly dishonest and actually idolatrous. This is not to say, of course, that those who do criticize the Vatican II antipopes, but obstinately maintain that they are popes, are justified. They are horrible as well.

Horrible, sad, angering and revealing heresy on EWTN

[This post has significance even for those who are unfamiliar with EWTN, for it demonstrates what the Vatican II sect of Benedict XVI represents in the everyday lives of people.]

In EWTN’s program Catholicism on Campus, which aired on Feb. 23, host “Msgr.” Stuart Swetland fielded a number of questions on salvation from college students. He was asked: is it necessary for salvation to be Catholic? In his answers, “Msgr.” Swetland said that non-Catholics can be saved, even those who don’t believe in Christ. He said that the Protestants can be saved, that they are incorporated into the Church at baptism. He made no qualification whatsoever; the message was that all Protestants are going to Heaven. He also said that Muslims and others can be saved. He also told the college students that Vatican II teaches (in Lumen Gentium 16) that those who don’t even believe in God can be saved. (By the way, this refutes a heretic whose initials are B.S. B.S. went out of his way to argue that Lumen Gentium 16 doesn’t teach that atheists can be saved, after we proved that it does. As we can see, Swetland agrees with us.)

“Msgr.” Swetland was also asked about once saved always saved, held by many Protestants. He said that Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing on that issue, but just express it differently. It’s all a matter of language, you see. (Again, these were college students who took the time to get – and were probably thirsting for – answers to these critical questions on salvation from one they think is a conservative “Catholic” monsignor.) As “proof” that Catholics and Protestants have the same view of salvation/justification/once saved, etc., EWTN’s “monsignor” pointed to the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification and said that Catholics and Protestants believe the same on justification. (This again demonstrates what we’ve proven, in contradiction to the claims of many heretics who have attempted to deny the undeniable, that the Vatican II sect agrees with the Lutherans on justification.)

After having heard his explanation, that essentially the members of all religions can be saved and that it’s not necessary to be Catholic, Swetland was also asked if evil people can be saved. He responded by stating that the bible teaches that we are all evil, and that he won’t say that anyone is in Hell.

How empty, how heretical, how horrible, and how definitely Hell-bound is this apostate who calls himself a “monsignor,” and who is featured as a beacon of truth on EWTN! How certainly Hell-bound are also all those who promote, defend or excuse such heresy and heretics by either obstinately professing communion with them and their sect, or by failing to condemn and expose their sect when they can! How sad that these college students are being fed this spiritual poison, being left out to (spiritually) dry because they aren’t hearing the truth and don’t have the interest to search it out themselves!

If only they were hearing the simple, true and traditional teachings of the Church, it would probably spark something within some of them to take a deep interest in the Faith and change their lives. As the missionaries (e.g. St. Francis Xavier) and Sacred Scripture (Isaias 5:13) point out, people do perish because of lack of knowledge. That means that some would have responded and would have been saved if they had heard the truth, but they were lost because they didn’t. That’s why, for example, spreading this new book we have on the Counter Church is so important; and it seems to have generated interest among people so far.

Those who imbibe this Vatican II heresy, promoted by Swetland and EWTN (and promoted from corner to corner of the Counter Church by “priests,” nuns, catechists, etc.), do not have the Faith they need for salvation. One could tell by the line of questioning of the college students that they could see, at least in a certain way, that it didn’t make sense, that, deep down, his answers constituted an inconsistent fraud. For after the “monsignor” gave his explanation, one of them asked: “…if all men are saved, why send missionaries to other countries, why be Catholic?” The heretic responded by saying that it’s important to make explicit the implicit faith they have.

Hate Crimes/Jewish Power/Loss of Freedom

More loss of freedom: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020104.html

And look at who is demanding this. Please comment on this article.

Thank you and may God bless you and your work.

Frank Granic

MHFM: We’re glad that you sent us that article because on Jan. 5 Hate Crimes legislation was re-introduced to Congress.

Hate Crimes’ Legislation is back

Hate Crimes' Bill Signals End of Freedom of Speech and Religion in America

We’ve just added two videos from Ted Pike to our videos page. Ted Pike is unfortunately a Protestant and therefore we don’t endorse him or all of his material, but he has done tremendous research on Judaism and Jewish control. One of his videos is called Hate Laws. Click here to Watch it or our videos; Pike’s videos are near the bottom. (The Communist and Masonic Infiltration of the Church and Freemasonry’s Vast Influence over America have also been added to our videos page.) People need to see this frightening presentation by Pike, which you can access on our videos page. (Unfortunately, Pike’s films frequently display some objectionable and immodest images, e.g., unnecessarily long footage of homosexual parades, etc. This reveals the lack of prudence and lack of a sense of modesty so typical of a Protestant. Nevertheless, these films we’ve mentioned are very interesting and important.) His film Hate Laws shows how, due to the pressure of Jewish groups, it is now against the law in Canada to condemn homosexuality, preach those parts of the Gospel against Jews or hold that six million Jews didn’t die in the “Holocaust.” And if the Jews aren’t stopped, it will be that way in America through Hate Crimes legislation concoted and pushed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. The legislation now being introduced to Congress does not criminalize the things mentioned above – rather, it federalizes crimes committed against individuals because of bias – but it would serve as the toe in the door to eventually introduce Canadian style Hate Laws. These will end freedom to speak the truth and will make criminals out of true Catholics, as well as Protestants who adhere to Scripture’s teaching on those matters.

Pike’s presentation also exposes how the Jewish Anti-Defamation League was caught illegally spying on the people, stealing banking information, drivers’ licences, etc. The purpose of such spying is to acquire as much information as possible on those deemed to be opposed to the Jewish domination of society (i.e. “radical” conservatives), so that when these Hate Laws eventually go on the books the Jewish group can give the information to authorities to round up conservatives. On that video page, we’ve also added Ted Pike’s film The Other Israel. This enlightening film shows what the Talmud, the Jewish “holy book,” really teaches about non-Jews, about Our Lord, etc. It also discusses the fact that the most esteemed rabbis in Judaism endorsed sex with girls below the age of four. It shows how Jews were dominant in the creation of Bolshevism which became the Communist Empire, how Jews dominate the media, etc.

Jew Keith Olbermann has accused “Catholic” League President Bill Donohue of being “anti-semitic” because Donohue correctly stated that “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews.” The truth is that Donohue is a despicable apostate who grovels at the feet of Jews who reject Christ. He admitted publicly that he actually wishes Jews “Happy Hanakau.” Donohue is a major proponent of the Vatican II sect’s endorsement of Judaism; he frequently describes rabbis as his good friends and expresses his esteem for those who practice Judaism. Such a ridiculous accusation by Olbermann is another example of how the Jews consolidate power by always portraying themselves as the victims, always putting their opponents on the defensive, including those who actually promote Judaism. This has been added to our Jewish Power and Control Watch.

Thoughts on Europe

To whom this may concern, Most Holy Family Monastery:

Dominus vobiscum. I have reviewed your information for some time now, and I admit that it is compelling information. I appreciate the effort you and your contributors apply to the task of exposing the liberal elite plaguing the Church and diluting the Faith, especially in America and Europe. I just wanted to say that, while Europe is in spiritual shambles for now, the socialist and atheist Old Guard will be disappearing in a few generations; they simply refuse to produce new children and raise families, leaving their foolhardy futures uncertain; this has become very evident by the declining populations throughout Europe. I feel it is in this time that good Catholics from North America (primarily the United States and Canada) should consider moving back to the continent of our origination- be it spiritual or cultural. For example, if a few thousand traditional Catholic families moved to Ireland or Britain and continued to produce new generations, thousands of faithful Catholics could help regain parts of Europe for Christ our Lord.

I pray that our ancient lands do not fall to the Mohammedans in this modern era, as did the lands of the Byzantine East five hundred years earlier. I know that I personally intend to move to Ireland or Scotland with my fiancee within a decade a raise a family in my ancient homelands; I feel everyone should grant this some contemplation.

Pax Christi.

MHFM: You mention the well-documented fact that, if birthrates continue as they are, Europe will eventually be overtaken by Muslims. Besides the fall of the Catholic monarchies in the 20^th century and the arrival of the Counter Church in Rome, this fact is also a sign of where we are in history (i.e. the last days).

Great story

I work in a large office building of over 500 people. Just recently I moved to a different location within the building next to a women who had 'tons' of pinups / photos of a celebrity at her desk which included immodest ones, some of the photos have been up for about a year. This person would take great pride in 'showing the pictures off ' and admitted that she was obsessed with the celebrity. None of the co-workers or managers ever had a problem with it. Not knowing if I should complain to managment - or confront the person themselves about the improper pictures, - So I decided to pray a Novena to The Baby Infant Jesus of Prague ( the same prayer Padre Pio said daily) telling Him to come down from Heaven and remove the photos Himself. I promised that I would spread the Infants devotional prayercards if the prayer was granted..I also prayed to Padre Pio as well during the 9 days. After the 9th day of the Novena, when the women came into work that day, I sat in shock & amazement in my office chair as I watched her take all the photos down for good & they havent been up since. I see her daily but the reason for her removing them is still a mystery! Thanks Infant of Prague and Padre Pio for 'cleaning up' my workspace.

MHFM: That’s a great story. If you haven’t already, perhaps you could give her a Creation and Miracles DVD or a Padre Pio book.

Lienart/Lefebvre

Dear Brothers Dimond,

Marcel Lefebvre was ordained a priest by Achille Lienart, a known Freemason. Consequently, how can it be assumed that a known Freemason would intend to do what the Church wanted done during Lefebvre's ordination? Furthermore, one of the frequent defenses of Lefebvre's priesthood is that his episcopal consecration would have supplied priestly power, especially since -- unlike ordination -- there are multiple parties involved in an episcopal consecration who can supply for any defect in intention. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica, Suppl. q.40 a.5 that, unlike Orders, "episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an order." Since Lienart's masonic membership makes his intention doubtful doesn't that also make Lefebvre's priesthood and episcopacy doubtful as well?

Thank you for your time and God bless you.

David

MHFM: When a minister uses the external matter and form prescribed by the Church he is presumed for that reason to have intended to do what the Church does.

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

During the French Revolution, the Bishop Talleyrand was a Freemason. He ordained many priests. There is no evidence that the Church re-ordained any of those men; on the contrary, they were accepted as valid. Further, it was discovered after his death that Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, was a high-ranking Freemason. Surely Rampolla ordained priests, but there is no evidence that any of the men he ordained were conditionally re-ordained. If one can doubt the validity of the Lefebvre-line orders then one can go back in history and question almost anyone's orders.

Padre Pio book

Dear Brother Michael,

The Padre Pio book may well be the most important book of our era. I wish you much success in its distribution. God speed, Yours always in Jesus and Mary

Mark Lillywhite

Alhambra, CA

Antichrist video

Hello -I've been trying to watch "John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist" online, but within the first minute and again in the 18th
minute, the video breaks off. I've tried a couple times, and it breaks off at the same points each time. There may be other breakoffs - I haven't tried
watching past the 18-minute dropout. Just though you might like to know.

Keith Shirk

MHFM: Keith, it sounds like a problem with your internet connection. What I would recommend is that you download the video. Once it has been successfully downloaded, you could play it on your computer hopefully without a problem.

Pius XII and DVDs

Hi Brothers,

The DVDs that I ordered from your monastery: "Abortion, Rock Music and Freemasonry exposed", "Freemasonry's Infuence on America", "The Communist and Freemasonic Infultration into the Catholic Church","Creation and Miracles Past and Present", "The Heresies of Benedict XVI", and "Why the New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination are Invalid." all came in today.

I watched the freemasonry videos and was suprised to see how much influence this satanic cult has on the world and the post Vatican II church. It truly resembles the religion of the beast fortold in the book of revelation. One question I have is that Dr. Wardner twards the end of the video seemed to suggest that Pius XII might have had some connection with the masons, if this were true would he still hold his pontificate or would he have lost his jurisdiction and become an antipope?

In Christ,

Glenn

MHFM: Pius XII was meeting with those people because he was meeting with high-level officials of the U.S. Government at the time, who happened to be high-ranking Freemasons. A pope could not be considered to have lost his office unless there is clear and repeated proof that he has become a manifest heretic.

Exorcism videos

Dear Brothers,

The exorcism videos in your website show convincingly the reality of Satan and his devils. These videos are a must- see for everyone Catholic or non-Catholic alike and I hope that you can sell them to us in VHS or DVD so we can show them to others. Not everyone has a computer, you know. If you can obtain other actual exorcism videos to add to what you already have would be great. Thanks. God be with you.

In Christ,

Marie of Toronto

MHFM: We’re glad you liked the videos. Our readers also might be interested to know that we have recently combined some of the best parts of the exorcism audios into one audio tape, which is available from us.

FSSP

Hello,

Let me introduce myself. My name is Mike and I was directed to your website by a new friend I met in Yahoo Catholic Chat tonight. We were discussing papal heresy, both old and current, and he sent me a link to your pages. Alot of info there. It will take months to wade through it all. We then got to talking about Latin Mass and various congregations that have the Latin Mass available to them. I sent him a link to the one I go… and he said that the priests of FSSP might not be legitimate priests because they were ordained by a
Bishop that is not recognized as valid by the Church.

Do you have any info on FSSP that will either lay my mind at ease or
send me scurrying to the confessional?

Thanks,
Mike

MHFM: Mike, it's true that the FSSP men were ordained by “bishops” consecrated in Paul VI's New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, which is of doubtful validity. Therefore, except for the few in their group who were validly ordained in another group and then joined their society, their men should not be considered validly ordained priests. Here are some facts about the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration:

TRADITIONAL FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: …in the Episcopal ordination or consecration… the form consists of the words of the ‘Preface,’ of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

► “Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

With its mention of “the fullness of Thy ministry… raiment of all glory” this traditional form unequivocally signifies the power of the episcopacy, which is the “fullness of the priesthood.” Paul VI’s new form in the 1968 rite is given below. The two forms only have one thing in common, the single word “et,” which means “and.”

PAUL VI’S NEW FORM FOR CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

• “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

This new form does not unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy. The phrase “governing Spirit” is used to refer to many things in scripture or tradition (e.g. Psalm 5:14), but it doesn’t unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy. Therefore, the new form is of doubtful validity.

St. Martin, catechumen and morning prayers

Hi. I am writing about St. Martin of Tours because he is a great saint to pray to in these times we are experiencing. He was around the time of St. Hillary and the arian heresy. I have found it hard to find any traditional Catholics that know anymore about him then the popular image of him giving a poor man half of his cloak. This is a shame because he fought arianism as fervently as St. Athanacious and is also a powerful Saint to pray to for help in praying with more fervor and such. It was almost impossible to obtain any information on him as if he was becoming a forgotten saint. I finally found a book that is out of print from Amazon.com It is called "St. Martin of Tours" by Henri Gheon. I don't believe any books are in print anymore on this wonderful Saint.

I was also wandering about what prayers you believe are essential for morning prayers…

I would be most appreciative if you could e-mail me a list of such prayers so I may see if I am missing some essential daily prayers.

Thanks, God speed,

Vinny

MHFM: Since you mentioned St. Martin of Tours, it’s worth repeating that he was a saint who raised an unbaptized catechumen to life for baptism. The miracle is also mentioned by Dom Prosper Guéranger:

“Was not the catechumen of Liguge snatched from the land of the living, when thou [St. Martin] didst call him back to life and Baptism?” (The Liturgical Year, Nov. 11, Vol. 15, p. 255).

It’s also very interesting that the Life of St. Martin by Sulpitius Severus says that the unbaptized catechumen, upon being restored to life, revealed that he was condemned to the “gloomy regions” (i.e. Hell). In other words, the unbaptized catechumen would have been condemned to Hell without baptism. It’s just more evidence that no one can be saved without baptism, as Jesus said (John 3:5) and as the Church has defined.

Regarding morning prayers, people should make a morning offering to start the day. This is a good one:

“O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my every thought, word, and action of this day. O my Jesus, I desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can, offering them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart. O Precious Blood of Jesus, save us. Immaculate heart of Mary, pray for us; Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.”

The prayer to the Most Holy Trinity given by the angel at Fatima is also recommended:

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly.
I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity
of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world,
in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference
by which He is offended. And through the infinite merit
of His Most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.

The following indulgenced short prayers found in the New Roman Missal by Fr. Lasance are also good to start a day:

-Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.

-My Mother, preserve me this day from mortal sin.

-Holy Mary, deliver us from the pains of Hell.

-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.

Heretical bishops

Good day Diamond Brothers, I want to know about the Traditional Bishops that are holding heresy. We Know that a Pope loses the pontifficate if he fall into heresy. But Can Bishop loose the anionting of the episcopacy? Can they seize to be Bishops by heresy?

Sincerely

Emmanuel Nwafor

Abuja Nigeria

MHFM: Thanks for the question. No, once a person receives the fullness of the priesthood through Episcopal Consecration the powers which come from that consecration cannot be taken away from him. But a heretical bishop loses all jurisdiction (or authority) in the Catholic Church. So, a bishop who becomes a heretic would still be a bishop, but would cease to be a Catholic bishop and would cease to hold authority over Catholics.

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

Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos infallible

I notice that alot of sedevacantists are offened by john paul II and Benedict XVI's visits to non-catholic worship services, did any pope ever do this before vatican II? When pope Pius XI condemmed inter faith prayer meetings (like assisi) was this ex cathedra or just his personal feelings?

God Bless,

Glenn

MHFM: No true pope took part in non-Catholic worship services. The Church has always forbidden such activity under pain of mortal sin. Regarding Pius XI’s condemnations of interfaith prayer meetings, it was infallible because it was a clear example of a pope speaking with the ordinary and universal magisterium (which is infallible according to Vatican I). Not everything a pope says in an encyclical is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium (as we will further prove by something we will soon post), but when a pope uses language such as the following it is definitely from the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics, for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it …”

The pope says “this Apostolic See” has never allowed its subjects to take part in non-Catholic assemblies. This means that it is the universal teaching of the Church that such an action is forbidden. Notice that the pope links this teaching with how the union of Christians is to be promoted; in other words, this is not merely an ecclesiastical law or a Church discipline, but a Church law connected with the Catholic Faith.

Additionally, while it’s not necessary to prove that this statement of Pius XI is ex cathedra in order to prove that it’s binding and that it refutes the heresies of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II antipopes, one could argue that it is ex cathedra. Here’s why: in order for a statement to be ex cathedra a pope must speak: 1) as pastor and teacher of all Christians, 2) on a point of faith or morals to be believed by the universal Church, and 3) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority. When Pius XI says “This Apostolic See,” he is saying “This Chair of St. Peter.” The Apostolic See = the Chair of St. Peter. That means that he is speaking as pastor and teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority as occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. And since he is setting forth a teaching involving faith or morals which has always been binding on all “subjects” of the Church, one could argue that he has fulfilled the conditions to speak from the Chair of Peter mentioned by Vatican I.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “And since the sentiment of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Mt. 16:18], these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

Kissing Koran question

I have a hypothetical question that could happen in the future.

You can answer yes or no and if you desire, explain your answer. In my book there is no right or wrong answer.

You fall into the hands of radical Muslims. The Muslim shows you a copy of the Koran. The Muslim says: This book denies that your Christ is God. This book denies the atonement of Christ. This book denies that your Christ rose from the dead. Reverently kiss this book or we will behead you. What would be the proper response, kiss or not?

MHFM: Of course you couldn’t kiss the book. That’s quite obvious. In that scenario the choice is martyrdom or apostasy; the Catholic must choose martyrdom. You are wrong when you say that there is no wrong answer to that question.

Geocentrism

Was the view Geocentricism declared as infallible when Galileo was condemned?

R.W.

What do you think of Geocentrism?

M… from Penn.

MHFM: We will be posting something on this issue soon. We receive questions about it somewhat frequently. There are some very important points about this issue which hold relevance to many things.

Heresy of the Week note

The Heresy of the Week will now be updated on Mondays instead of Fridays.

Interested in salvation

Most Holy Family Monastery,

I have recently seen a couple segments of yours on DVD. I went to your website and now my eyes are open. Your teachings have brought my faith back to the front of my life. I am soon to be twenty-one, and over the past several years I felt I just lost touch with the Church. I believe that the current state of the Church has been the reason for that. But now that I see the true state of events, what should I do in order to enjoy salvation? Since the Consecration has changed in the New Mass, does that mean I have never really received true Eucharist? Can salvation still be mine if I don't receive Eucharist? If it is necessary, where can I go or how could I?

I read on the website that I should go to a priest who was ordained prior to 1968 for Confession. What if I cannot find one? If there are few genuine Catholic priests left, won't there eventually be none? Is everyone now doomed because Confession would not be possible?

My last question deals with marriage. My girlfriend is unfortunately non-Catholic. In light of everything that has come to my attention recently, I am going to do everything in my effort to convert her to the true faith. If I am successful, and we decide that marriage is what God is calling us to, will that even be possible? Can I still enter into a marriage that is pleasing to God given the current apostasy?

God bless,
Michael Piccillo

MHFM: Michael, your interest and that of so many others who contact us serves to show that if the immemorial teachings of the Church are simply made known – in other words, when people are preached to – people will become interested in the truth. When the true Mass and teachings of the Church were taken away from people, they fell away. To your first question, to enjoy salvation one must be baptized, hold the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled, and die in the state of grace. This can best be done by having a strong prayer life, a true devotion to the Mother of God (daily Rosary), and a zeal for the Faith (which includes spiritual reading daily, evangelizing your friends and neighbors, studying the Faith to deepen your knowledge of God and His truth, avoiding the occasions of sin, etc.) We strongly recommend everyone to make the true devotion to Mary set forth by St. Louis De Montfort by his book True Devotion to Mary. For those who have been away from the Faith, they should make the profession of Faith for converts from the Council of Trent, which is given on our website. Those who were involved in the Novus Ordo should also confess that they have attended a non-Catholic service (and mention for how long).

To your second question, the answer is yes: since the New Mass is invalid, that means that you have never received the Eucharist (assuming that you have only attended the New Mass). To your third question, can salvation be yours if you don’t receive the Eucharist? Our Lord teaches (in John 6) that receiving the Eucharist is necessary for salvation for those who can receive it. If there is no acceptable option for you to receive the Eucharist, then there is no obligation to do so and one could be saved without doing so – a situation which many Catholics in Church history found themselves. (St. Isaac Jogues, for instance, during his lengthy stays among particular groups of heathen in North America, was unable to say Mass or receive the Eucharist. The Chinese Catholics were in a similar situation.) There are old priests in many dioceses in the country to whom one could go for Confession; that can be done in this necessity. We have posted in the E-Exchanges below the process by which one could get married without a priest. But you could only marry a traditional Catholic. The Church denounces mixed marriages. People must be very careful not to enter into marriage with one who is not truly interested in the Faith, for many make the wrong decision which becomes a burden to them for most of their lives. Again, it’s great to hear about your interest.

False apparition

Good day Dimond Bothers, I picked up a book tittled "Maria, Rosa Mystica" by A.M Weigl. I have read up to Page 66, and it's about a supposed "apparition" of Our Lady with the name Rosa Mystica" I don't if you have gone through it or done something on it, but with the pages i have read so far i am not comfortable at all. this is what supposedly Our Lady said of Antipope paul vi… "One may send part of this wheat to my beloved son Paul VI. and tell him that this wheat comes from his home land of Brecia, from Montichiari, and that it is blessed by our apparition. Tell him also what my divine son Jesus Christ wishes... Part of the wheat is to be to Fatima" I don't agree that the man who solemley decreed all the Heresies of Vatican II, just a year after that ambormination could be honored by Our Lady Mother of God as "my beloved son", and with the words that suggest Our Lord Jesus christ's and her's approval of him.

MHFM: Of course, that message cannot be from God. It’s just another example of a false apparition of the Devil.

St. John Vianney against dancing

MHFM: Here is the quote we mentioned on the radio program concerning St. John Vianney’s opposition to people taking part in the dancing that occurred at his time:

We can only imagine what he would say about the proms and dances hosted by schools today – including almost all “Catholic” High Schools – which feature rock, rap and heavy metal music, in addition to horribly improper dress and dancing. Obviously St. John Vianney would consider all of the parents who allow their children to take part in such dances to be in mortal sin. That would include about 100% of parents who have their children in “Catholic” High Schools. Considerations such as this may shed further light on the fewness of the saved.

Interested, what to do?

Bro. Dimond, I am writing this to you after visiting the website where you have the videos regarding Freemasonry and the Anti popes and Vatican II. I found it quite disturbing but so much of what was there rang true in my heart and soul. :… I viewed the video entitled Why the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination are Invalid .

This was astonishing to me because for about 10 years, during my prayer life I heard or felt a movement in my soul precisely telling me all that your video discusses. I have had serious questions about the priest being valid and the Eucharist being truly consecrated. I remember little about the Pre Vatican II mass as I was born in 1960 however there has always been something within my heart since I made my total consecration to Our Lady that something in the new mass was wrong, very wrong.

After watching this video, I am almost heartsickened because I now realize that I have been deprived of the Sacraments and I am wondering where I should go to practice my faith… I was baptized a Catholic and have recently began attending the Tridentine Mass. Can you tell me where it is that I can go to mass and be in full communion with the true One, Holy and Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. How do I find such faithful priests? I have recently started attending the Tridentine Mass. Your videos online indicate that the priests ordained post Vatican II are not legitimate priests. Am I correct? If this is so, then how is it that the priest celebrating the Tridentine Mass be a true Catholic priest and does this mean that the mass I am attending is not valid? Thank you

Ms. Rachel Laisne

MHFM: Rachel, unfortunately in this time of apostasy, there are almost zero faithful priests. That’s what people need to realize. Even in the case of priests who celebrate the traditional Mass, almost all of them believe that non-Catholics can be united to the Church without baptism or the Catholic Faith, which is heresy. Many of them support the sinful birth control practice of NFP, and many of them accept the Vatican II antipopes as valid. None of those priests can be financially supported, even if they are celebrating the Latin Mass. And if they are notorious or imposing about their false positions, their Masses should not be attended. Someone here would be happy to speak with you about your particular situation if you called us. Please do so. We’ve posted guidelines on our website about this difficult question – and we get questions about this all the time – so people should consult those.

Regarding your question about priests ordained post-Vatican II, if they were ordained in the traditional rite of ordination by a bishop consecrated in the traditional rite of Episcopal Consecration then they would be valid. But that would be the case with priests ordained independently of the dioceses because the dioceses began using the new invalid rites of Paul VI after 1968-1969.

Are unbaptized children wicked?

MHFM: The material we have put out defending and promoting the truths of the Catholic Faith sometimes sparks strong reactions among heretics of various persuasions. People in the Novus Ordo Church, as well as people who profess to be traditional Catholics but who have fallen prey to one of the many errors that unfortunately circulate today, very often have comments on our material. So, just as we have many times in the past, we will continue to post in this column some quick comments/refutations of the statements and points that have been raised by some of these individuals. If our response gets too long, we will post a separate article.

One individual (a schismatic referred to a few E-Exchanges below) has commented on our position that the term “justification of the impious/wicked” doesn’t describe unbaptized infants, but only mortal sinners above the age of reason. Before we continue, it should be pointed out that this particular individual has no credibility: he has, among other things, claimed to be a prophet while admitting he was a heretic; publicly contradicted positions he and his followers profess in writing as truths of faith; and stated, among many other things, that St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus “idolized” St. Thomas Aquinas. To “idolize” someone is to make an idol out of him; i.e., it is to commit idolatry. To assert that canonized saints of the Catholic Church, who are also Doctors of the Church, made idols out of another saint – and therefore that the Church raised idolaters up for universal veneration and imitation – is horribly wicked and impious, to re-use the aforementioned phrase and apply it to an appropriate object, if I may do so. It is equivalent to heresy. When someone reads such an utterly idiotic statement from someone who purports to be defending Catholic teaching – a statement so wicked, so foolish, and so insulting to the Catholic Church – that in itself should be sufficient to cause a person to realize that he should stay far, far away from such a heretic’s material. Nevertheless, since we have refuted this individual before – and lest a few of our readers who are familiar with him think we don’t have a response to his latest – we thought we’d post the following few points.

We have stated our position that the Council of Trent’s use of the term iustificationis impii (the justification of the impious/wicked) is a strong phrase which describes mortal sinners above the age of reason. (That word “impii” is used in Jude 1:4 and Jude 1:15. Both usages – as is clear from the context – describe mortal sinners above the age of reason.) Even though unbaptized infants are certainly guilty of original sin and they are outside the Church and under the dominion of the Devil until they receive Baptism, they are incapable of actual sins (de fide, Trent); and therefore it is our position that the strong phrase (which we believe describes mortal sinners) doesn’t apply to them. That was simply the point we made; nothing more, nothing less. Based on this rather innocuous statement of our position, this utterly dishonest individual – like so many other Protestants and heretics who use impressionistic rhetoric and take things out of context to attempt to make someone they don’t like look bad or to attribute to him things he doesn’t hold – went on a tirade declaring that we are heretics for saying that infants are not sinners, and that we essentially don’t believe that infants are under the dominion of the Devil and barred from Heaven if they die without baptism – something that is completely untrue. He states:

“The Dimond Brothers idolize children. Every little infant is rotten to the core. The Dimond Brothers have actually taught that unbaptized infants are not really evil; they are not wicked sinners.”

He didn’t take the time to point out to his few schismatic followers that all we did was repeat the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, which declares that infants are incapable of actual sins, even though they are certainly in original sin:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, #4 on Original Sin: “For by reason of this rule of faith from a tradition of the apostles even infants, who could not as yet commit any sins of themselves, are for this reason [original sin] truly baptized for the remission of sins… for unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].” (Denzinger 791)

Unbaptized infants have original sin, but they are incapable of actual sins (de fide). That’s all we said; if you condemn that as heresy then you condemn the Council of Trent. Without pointing out that this is what we were repeating, he dishonestly attempted to condemn our “heresy” as follows – and he fell into a major ditch, as heretics and false prophets so often do, as a result:

He stated: “People are looking at these young ones; and they are idolizing them, and they are making them innocent.”

He clearly and repeatedly indicated that it’s “heresy” to consider unbaptized infants “innocent.” Keep that in mind. First of all, it should be pointed out that we didn’t say once that they were innocent. So this is another example of this totally dishonest fool attributing to someone a statement which he didn’t make. Second, while he is condeming as “heretics” those who refer to unbaptized infants as INNOCENT, I guess this schismatic has never heard of the feast of THE HOLY INNOCENTS. In case he didn’t know, on Dec. 28 of each year Catholics celebrate the feast of the Holy Innocents, which refers to those children slaughtered by Herod at the time of Christ. These children were in original sin, but the Liturgy of the Church calls them “innocents” because they had no actual sins. We don’t know how many times this wicked and impious false prophet schismatic needs to be refuted before he will crawl back into his hole, convert to the Catholic Faith and close up his sect, but the handful who actually are persuaded by this utterly illogical servant of the Devil are not innocent, but truly wicked.

To hammer the point home, we will quote Dom Prosper Gueranger, who quotes the Antiphon of the Magnificat from the Liturgy:

“Innocent infants were slain for Christ, children at the breast were murdered by a wicked king…”

By the way, this is a quotation one of us came across shortly after this latest “controversy” erupted. It further demonstrates the point and contradicts the heretic.

Pope Pius XII, Quemadmodum (#1), Jan. 6, 1946: “But of almost all the countless ills born of the dire struggle none so hurts or wounds Our paternal heart as that which involves a host of innocent children, millions of whom it is estimated are in many countries without the necessities of life…”

Pius XII is clearly speaking here of both baptized and unbaptized children, who were destitute as a result of World War II. Thus, he is clearly describing many unbaptized children as “innocent.” He describes them as such not because they aren’t in original sin – they are; not because they can be saved – they cannot; and not because they aren’t under the dominion of the Devil – they are; but because they have no actual sins on their souls and are therefore innocent of all actual sins. It’s quite a simple distinction, but heretics often corrupt proper distinctions and attack those who make them.

[By the way, some people in the Old Testament – who were still in the state of original sin – were described as “holy” (Ecclesiasticus 27:4; Numbers 6:14; 1 Esdras 8:28) because they had the preliminary form of justification that was given in the Old Testament, but they did not have the complete true justification which is only available in the New Testament period.]

Valid priests?

Good morning,

I have recently started to learn more about & am attending a Traditional Catholic Church. I am a cradle catholic & was around 6 yrs old when the Latin Mass was changed to the Novus Ordo mass. I have been told that since the words of consecration have been changed from "For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith;
which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins", many has been changed to "all", that this makes the new mass invalid. Does this mean that all priests ordained after Pope Paul VI are invalid priests & are they invalid even if they say the traditional Latin Mass??

Also, if someone receives the sacraments by a Novus Ordo priest or heretic with the proper intention of the church, matter & form, is it still valid?? Your website is very informative & I appreciate the time you take to answer questions.

thank you,
Cindy Tuss

MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad you like the website. The only priests ordained after Antipope Paul VI who are valid are those who have been ordained in the traditional rite of ordination (whether Eastern Rite or Roman Rite ) by a bishop who was ordained in the traditional rite of consecration. And there were many priests who continued to be ordained validly in the traditional rites after Paul VI changed them in the Novus Ordo Church. But those priests and the bishops who ordained them were independent of the dioceses which had been overtaken by the counterfeit V-2 Church. Regarding your second question, a validly ordained priest who is a heretic (such as a Novus Ordo priest or Eastern “Orthodox”) can validly confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist, provided matter and form is adhered to. But that would only apply to a priest validly ordained in the traditional rite, of course. And since the Novus Ordo Mass has an invalid form, it wouldn't matter if a validly ordained priest said it; it would still be invalid.

We hope that answers your questions.

When the baptized children of heretics become heretics

So what is Church’s teaching on Baptism—there is but one baptism and one Church that one is baptized too. If properly done, (even a lay person can baptized in case of emergency—so a pagan with the correct intention could baptized) –so all Protestants start off as members of the Church—right—wrong? If there is but one baptism and one Church at what point do these heretics stop being members of the one Church?—if they were members at one time, are they not the same as a fallen away Catholic and only need a conversion of heart and confession to become members again?

MHFM: To your first question, yes, as the Council of Florence says, anyone (including a pagan) is capable of validly baptizing.

>>>so all Protestants start off as members of the Church—right—wrong?>>>

Wrong. It is not true that all Protestants start off as members of the Church. Protestants who were baptized as infants started out as members of the Church, yes…

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 869)

… but Protestants who were baptized into a sect while rejecting the Catholic Church or some of its teachings were baptized as heretics and therefore were never made members of the Church.

>>>>If there is but one baptism and one Church at what point do these heretics stop being members of the one Church?—>>>>

Your question needs to be more precise. What you mean is: at what point do these baptized individuals start being heretics and stop being members of the Church (for no heretic is a member of the Church). We’re glad that you asked this question because there is an individual in the Western part of this country (who is definitely a schismatic and has essentially founded his own sect and whose positions are rife with blatant inconsistencies) who states that all the baptized children of heretics become heretics at the age of reason. He says that as soon as the child reaches the age of reason he becomes a heretic. He says that this position is a dogma, and that our position – which is that the baptized child of a heretic (e.g. a baptized child of a Protestant) becomes a Protestant heretic at the time when he rejects the Catholic Church or one of its teachings – is actually heresy. We have already totally refuted his utterly illogical position elsewhere, but a few short comments are in order here, since he actually says that our position was the root cause of the Great Apostasy. We’ve come to our position after careful thought and study of the matter; we will see below that it is our position which is the Catholic position, and totally in accord with logic, the teaching of the Church and Tradition.

In answering this question precisely, we must point out that the Catholic Church has never infallibly defined at exactly what point the children of sect members become heretics/sect members, or specifically what actions render them heretics/sect members. We know that they become heretics when they obstinately reject a Catholic teaching or the authority of the Church, but debate could occur as to exactly what actions, short of an explicit rejection of Catholic teaching or the Catholic Church or the Trinity or the Incarnation, renders them heretics and causes them to lose the Catholic Faith and subjection to the Roman Pontiff which they already received at their baptism as infants. Secondly, we must point out that heresy is a personal sin which severs membership in the Church and sends a person to Hell because one draws down on his own head an eternal flame.

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:

“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

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

Notice, the councils teach that all heretics bring the punishment down on themselves, and all heretics are alike in their own pride. Thus, it is not the pride of one’s father or mother, nor the heresy of one’s father or mother, that brings down eternal punishment on one’s head; but it is one’s own pride and one’s own act that makes one a heretic. This, in itself, should demonstrate to us that the baptized child of a sect member doesn’t become a heretic immediately upon hitting the age of reason, for he hasn’t yet done anything at all; but he becomes a heretic at that time when he, through his own pride and bad will, obstinately embraces a heresy and rejects the teaching of the true Church. This is, of course, perfectly logical and consistent; and anyone who thinks about this issue deeply and honestly (something the aforementioned sect member, mired in his blindness, does not do) would have to come to the same position.

For example: suppose you have a family that adheres to the Society of St. Pius X. Suppose they are obstinate in the false positions of the SSPX; they obstinately reject the “canonizations” of the one they deem to be the pope; they filter all of the official teachings of the Vatican II sect (which they think is the Catholic Church) according to the what the SSPX says about them, etc. They are schismatics; they are sect members. There are certainly some of these in the SSPX. Now suppose this unfortunately schismatic family has two baptized children below the age of reason, one of whom reaches the age of reason tomorrow. According to the position of the schismatic person mentioned above, as soon this baptized child hits the age of reason in the schismatic family he becomes a schismatic, for “as soon as the child reaches the age of reason he becomes a heretic.”

Now suppose that a year later the other baptized child in this family is about to hit the age of reason. But one day before their other child hits the age of reason this family of the Society of St. Pius X comes to a realization of the truth, rejects their false positions and converts to the Catholic Faith. According to the position of the aforementioned schismatic, their second baptized child, upon hitting the age of reason (although he did nothing different from his older sibling), would become a Catholic, since his parents are now Catholic! Could anything be more stupid? According to this illogical and false position, every baptized child in this family would become a Catholic or a heretic based, not on his own actions, but upon whether his parents were heretics or Catholics at the time he reached the age of reason! This contradicts the councils which teach that it is through one’s own actions that one becomes a heretic. Only a person who doesn’t think deeply about the dogmas, or who doesn’t savor logical consistency, or who is just a dishonest heretic, could obstinately advance this nonsense and have the audacity to actually call our position (which is consistent with Catholic teaching) the root cause of the Great Apostasy.

This example demonstrates, once again, that the baptized children of sect members don’t become sect members and lose the Catholic Faith they received at baptism immediately at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace heresy and reject the Catholic Faith or one of its teachings. Moreover, the gravity of the error of the aforementioned schismatic, who outrageously called our true position the root cause of the Great Apostasy – just one of his many grievous schismatic mistakes – becomes that much more obvious when we consider that exactly what we hold on this issue was held in the early Church, as can be seen here from the Council of Elvira way back in 300 A.D! (Protestants are often forced to say that the Great Apostasy started back in the early Church when confronted by evidence from the early Church which they don’t like. The aforementioned schismatic, who criticized our position on this issue, would have to agree and say that the Great Apostasy started in 300).

Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

We can see that the Council of Elvira recognized that the children of heretics don’t become heretics at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace the heresy by rejecting Catholic teaching. This proves that our position was held in the early Church, and it utterly refutes the aforementioned schismatic. While the Council of Elvira was a regional, not dogmatic, council, it demonstrates that the position we’ve enunciated above was held since the beginning – being consistent with logic and the Christian teaching, delivered by the apostles, on what makes one a heretic.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.”

St. Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.” (quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.)

Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

By the way, the reason that the aforementioned schismatic lashes out at our true position on this issue is because it devastates his entire sect. He has actually had his handful of schismatic followers sign a formal statement of Faith declaring that all the people above reason at all traditional chapels in the world are heretics. Well, if our position on this issue is true (which it is), then this blows away his official declaration that all the people at these chapels are heretics and it proves that he is a schismatic. Furthermore, notice that Pope Clement VI enunciates exactly our position in the document below:

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”[40]

In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see the position we’ve explained on this issue clearly taught. All who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.” So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

To your final question, for a Protestant to convert he or she needs to accept the Catholic Faith, reject Protestantism, and be forgiven in confession. He also should make an abjuration, but since this is an ecclesiastical law, in danger of death, for instance, a Protestant who accepted the Catholic Faith and rejected Protestantism and was forgiven in confession would be a Catholic and therefore could be saved.

Convert

Dear Dimond Brothers,

After reading and listening to items on your website, I seem to be in a catch-22 situation. I have been looking into converting to Catholicism and the New Mass seems to be only what's available where I live in southwestern Michigan. (Unless you know of a church I haven't found?) The problem lies in that I have never been baptized so in order for it to take place, I must not only take RCIA classes but attend the New Mass. My question to you here is, what do you recommend? Would it not be better to attend the New Mass and classes than remain unbaptized since this is how it has to be done now because of Vatican II rules? Or how would one find a traditional Priest that might be willing to do a baptism?

Many thanks for your informative and thought provoking articles.

Linda

MHFM: Linda, it's great to hear about your interest. It’s critical that you come to the realization that you cannot go to the New Mass if you want to truly convert, since it is a false and invalid Mass. We have a DVD on this topic which explains it. Also, attached is a copy of the basic Catholic catechism, which you should learn on your own. You don't need to take classes, especially not from those who instruct for the new, false Vatican II “Church.” The Profession of Faith for converts is on our website. You should look it over and make it. We know someone in Michigan who might be able to help you with your baptism. But you first need to be convinced that one cannot attend the New Mass or accept the new Vatican II religion.

We'd be happy to discuss this with you if you called us at 1-800-275-1126. Do you have a rosary, and know how to pray it?

St. John Vianney on ignorance being a sin

“The great misfortune of those poor people was their ignorance of religion and the indifference that resulted therefrom. They were by no means unbelievers, for they had preserved a remnant of faith. Their parish priest [St. John Vianney], severe but clear sighted, saw in their ignorance more than a mere deficiency – he thought it a sin. ‘We are convinced,’ he declared from the pulpit, ‘that this sin alone causes the loss of more souls than all the other sins together, because he who is ignorant does not realize the harm he does by his sin, nor the great good which he forfeits.’” (Abbé Francis Trocu, The Curé D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, pp. 127-128)

MHFM: No adult can be saved while being ignorant of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.). It is true, of course, that an adult could be ignorant of some aspects of Catholic Faith (while holding the essential mysteries) and not be guilty; but one who is ignorant of the basics, or things which one clearly should learn to practice the Faith in his daily life – as were many of the people with whom St. John Vianney was dealing – is guilty of sin. This sinful ignorance among the people of his day is analagous to the ignorance of many in the Novus Ordo churches today. Most of them, through their own lack of interest in God and in the Catholic Faith, fail to learn, for instance (even though they easily could), that Protestant religions are heretical sects which lead to damnation, that non-Chrisian religions are of the Devil, etc. Since they are ignorant of these things, they willingly imbibe the new religion of false ecumenism presented by the Vatican II sect and their Novus Ordo “priests.” They are not excused because they don’t know any traditional Catholic who is informing them; their ignorance is a result of their sins of sloth, lack of interest, etc. and therefore their ignorant state is mortally sinful. We’ve talked to so many even adult “traditional” Catholics who haven’t learned what the Papacy is or what Papal Infallibility means. This is another example of sinful ignorance.

Marriage without a priest

Good Day Dimond Brothers,

I am writing on behalf of the Traditional Catholic Society Abuja, Nigeria. we recieved your advice concerning the heretical traditional Priest. It encouraged us to take the stand that he should not come any more. Thank you.

On thursday last week, one of our member, a mother, passed on. She has been following the traditional teachings of the church since we left the Vatican II sect, though her husband is still a full member of the VII. Her name is mrs. Ndiokwelu. It's a week now, and that's because we got the news late. So we trully want to know what we are to do in the following situations:

1. At the death of a Faithful Catholic, like this one.

2. when in need of Booking Mass

3. in time of marriage for our members

Thank you for being there for so many souls.

Sincerely

Emmanuel Nwafor.

Abuja, Nigeria.

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail. In your present situation, you should just pray for the soul of the deceased traditional Catholic.

Regarding marriage, it can be contracted without a priest when no acceptable priests are available. This is because in marriage the sacrament is exchanged between the spouses and the priest is merely the official witness. In the absence of a priest, the bride and groom should exchange consent using the traditional words that are used when there is a priest. It should be done in the presence of two witnesses. Any Catholic may ask the questions which precede the exchange of consent, but a male is preferable. This goes as follows:

The person asks the bridegroom: N., do you take N., here present, for your lawful wife according to the rite of our holy mother, the Church? The bridegroom replies: I do.

Then the person asks the bride: N., do you take N., here present, for your lawful husband according to the rite of our holy mother, the Church? The bride replies: I do.

Then the person leading the ceremony in the absence of a priest says: Now join your right hands and say after me:

[Groom says] I, N.N., take you, N.N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

[Bride says]: I, N.N., take you, N.N., for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

Also, both the bride and the groom should sign a document stating that they are freely entering into sacramental marriage with the other person. Marriage without a priest is mentioned in canon 1098.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Communist Infiltration

Dear Brother Dimond: i am interested in reading the testimony given to the Congress in the 50's by Bella Dodd. She testified as to the infiltration of the Communist Party into the Catholic Church. Can you help? Thank you.

MHFM: We can tell you this: Mrs. Bella Dodd spent most of her life in the Communist Party of America and was Attorney General designate had the Party won the White House. After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She said that before she had left the Party in the U.S. she had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders; she was only one Communist.

Brother Joseph Natale, the founder of Most Holy Family Monastery, was present at one of Bella Dodd’s lectures in the early 1950’s. He stated:

“I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.”

Bella Dodd converted to Catholicism at the end of her life. Speaking as an ex-Communist, she said: “In the 1930’s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as monsignors and bishops. Back then, she said: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church. They are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church would not be effective against Communism.” She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.” (This was 10 to 12 years before Vatican II.)

Brother Joseph went on relating what Bella Dodd had said: “The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church… to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of predjudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.”

new articles

MHFM: Once we’re finished with the major project we’ve been working on (we’re almost completely finished), we plan on posting two articles on other issues which are much debated and very controversial in the traditionalist world. Further study of one of these issues has led to some important new insights on the other. Some of these facts which we will discuss absolutely blow away a position which is rampant among “traditionalists,” and they further confirm (not that there was any doubt) that the position we’ve advocated is in line with the truth. These articles won’t be composed and then posted for some time (for we are completing this other project we have mentioned), but we will continue to update our website in the meantime.

Confession

may I make confession with a piece of paper (on which I would write my sins, so that I would not forget something), and read my sins from that piece of paper? 12)if I don't know for sure if I commit some kind of sin, may I confess that sin, and add that I am not sure if I've made it?

R.P.

MHFM: Yes to both questions.

Siri and false elections

hello Brothers,

If i understand it, in order for john XXIII through Benedict XVI to be antipopes something would have had to have gone wrong at the 1958 and 1963 conclaves. Is it your theory that there was communication with the outside at both conclaves and therefore John XXIII and Paul VI elections were invalid and so neither of them were protected by the holy spirit? But what would have rendered John Paul I and John Paul II's elections invalid? Is it possilbe that the "Siri Thesis" is correct and Cardnal Siri (Gregory XVII) was the true pope (by law) until his death in 1989... The way I see it, the only way that five consecutive popes could really be antipopes and menifest heretics is if the ones who elected them were manifest heretics or if something went wrong at the council because nothing like this has ever happened before.

MHFM: According to Pope Paul IV’s Bull (which is quoted on our website), in order for these men to be antipopes (as they are) something would not have had to have gone wrong in the conclaves. The fact that they were heretics is sufficient in itself to render them antipopes and their elections invalid. However, it makes perfect sense that something did go wrong in the 1958 and 1963 conclaves, as the evidence indicates. The fact that Siri was elected and then intimidated into not accepting the office in the 1963 conclave is even admitted by Malachi Martin. The invalidating factor would be the outside communication combined with the fact that Siri was elected and then didn’t have freedom to accept it. Siri did not remain the pope for very long, however, and certainly not until his death 1989. This is because he fully accepted the Vatican II antipopes and therefore abdicated by going along with them. He even gave the funeral homily for John Paul I! The Siri information is interesting, but completely unnecessary in proving the point that the Vatican II “popes” are not true popes.

We are undoubtedly dealing with a set of conspirators, in addition to manifest heretics. John XXIII was a Freemason, as the Grand Master of the Grand Orient Lodge of Italy stated. Paul VI and John Paul II were probably Jews; their families have Jewish lineages. In this book which we are just about finished, there is much new information, including a discussion of something one of the Vatican II antipopes said which cryptically reveals that he was a Jewish infiltrator.

Benedict XVI is probably an occultist of some sort, a high level one. We say this because a man as intelligent as he is fully understands that he is knowingly deceiving the world and playing a role when he poses as a Catholic pope while getting initiated into Islam, saying that Jesus might not even be the Messiah, etc. We’ve just seen recently in the news from Poland how real it is to speak of infiltrators posing as members of the clergy and working for the Church’s enemies. But regardless, we can prove without any doubt that Benedict XVI is a public heretic and therefore not the pope based on doctrinal grounds alone.

EENS is nuts?

Brother Dimond,

Absolutely no salvation outside the Church? You're nuts man. The Church has always taught that people can be saved who are not Catholic. I don't believe however that any liberal, atheist, pagan or whoever will get to Heaven. The Church rejects both extremes. And no valid Pope since Pius XII? Go and see a psychologist! As far as the Latin Mass is concerned, I have nothing against it. Our Holy Father Pope Benedict as well as Pope John Paul the Great says it's ok to attend the Latin Mass. But you have no right to reject the New Mass. It was promulgated by a valid pope, Pope Paul VI. Get with it man!

Eric B. D

MHFM: No, a person like yourself, who actually claims to be Catholic and says that it’s “nuts” to assert that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church when the Church has dogmatically defined this, deserves to be considered nuts. Your e-mail provides an effective demonstration of why God allowed the post-Vatican II deception to occur: people like yourself don’t deserve Catholic priests, a valid Mass all over the world, and true popes reigning in this time. You got exactly what you deserved in being deceived by the post-Vatican II apostasy.

It also makes perfect sense that you would think that John Paul II was great, for you think the dogmas of the Catholic Church are “nuts.” (Those who think that the dogmas of the Church are great hold that people like yourself – who think that John Paul II was great – are worse than “nuts.”) Here are the words of Pope Gregory XVI about heretics such as yourself – teaching as the dogma of the Catholic Church exactly that which you call “nuts.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “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… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

(By the way, some people have written to us asserting that it’s accurate to say “There is No Salvation Outside the Church,” but not “There is Absolutely No Salvation outside the Church.” This is not true.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

The original Latin reads: “Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur…” The Latin words nullus omnino mean “absolutely nobody.”)

Lastly, your position is illogical. The Church has never said: “Yes, there is salvation outside the Church, but a very liberal pagan or atheist cannot be saved.” It has declared that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. Thus, if some Jews or Buddhists, etc. can be saved, then there is no basis whatsoever upon which you can argue that a liberal pagan or atheist cannot be saved. Yet you take this position because it appeals to you – it’s what you like – and you believe only in what you want to believe, not what Christ has revealed.

Padre Pio

[Was Padre Pio a heretic]

Dear Brothers,
You may want to respond …

Regards,
Michael A. Creighton

MHFM: We responded to that in our E-Exchanges about two weeks ago. You can find it below.

Palmer de Troya

Dear Rev. Brothers

Do you think that there is a problem with Palmar de Troya consecrations?. What's the difference between the ones Abp Thuc performed for Palmar de Troya and those he did for others?

Best wishes for 2007

AJNC

MHFM: While we believe that the original consecration performed by Archbishop Thuc was valid, one would have to doubt the validity of subsequent consecrations peformed in their sect. That’s because we know that they have changed the Mass, removed significant portions of it, etc. Thus, there is no confidence that they would adhere to the traditional rite of ordination without deleting things or devising their own rites.

By the way, their self-proclaimed “pope” also “solemnly declared” some years ago that, after the time of his declaration, there are no more valid sacraments outside the Palmerian sect. In a discussion with a member of the Palmerian sect, one of us brought this declaration forward to prove that this Palmerian “pope” is a self-proclaimed evil and heretical antipope. For his “solemn declaration” that there are no sacraments outside the Palmerian sect is false and ridiculous. It’s part of the deposit of faith that even heretics can confer valid sacraments, provided matter, form, etc. are present. The member of the Palmerian sect responded by saying that what their “pope” did was the equivalent of what Pope Leo XIII declared with regard to Anglican Orders in Apostolicae curae in 1896. She failed to understand that Leo XIII was not making Anglican Orders invalid from time of his declaration (something he couldn’t do), but declaring that they were already invalid due to defects in the rite.

What about?

On your web site, you quoted:

Pope Pius XI (+ 1922): “We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances…” (Ubi Arcano # 14)

But, how about THE BORGIA POPE and his "dance of the chestnuts", his bastard children, his incestuous relationship with his daughter, his murders, etc. I wonder if he said mass in Latin? Hmmm. Something to ponder don't you think?

Skip…

MHFM: The fact that a few true popes of the past were immoral (while not being manifestly heretical) is something one should be aware of. (Some of these cases are greatly exaggerated by non-Catholic historians, however.) Knowledge of, for instance, Pope Alexander VI’s immorality reminds a Catholic of the limits of the papal office, the meaning of infallibility, etc. It also reminds a Catholic that just because one goes to the Latin Mass or purports to be a traditional Catholic, it doesn’t mean that he or she is going to Heaven, of course. Many of these individuals commit mortal sins, demonstrate bad will and are not sincere. That’s why Our Lord says that few are saved (Matthew 7:13). But if you are insinuating (we’re not sure if you are) that an immoral pope who celebrated the Latin Mass somehow proves that it’s of no consequence whether one celebrates/attends the Latin Mass or the English Novus Ordo, that would, of course, be ridiculous.

Consecrating a bishop

Brothers,

I just learned that Bishop Kelly of the SSPV is going to consecrate Fr. Santay as bishop. Can a bishop subjectively just decide to consecrate someone? Supposedly, this is being done under the state of emergency, but the situation seems ripe for abuse.

TR Quinlan

MHFM: The laws which have forbidden a bishop to consecrate a bishop without a papal mandate are ecclesiastical laws, not divine laws. A bishop may consecrate a bishop without a papal mandate in a state of necessity, as we will discuss in a future article we will have on jurisdiction and related matters. Hence, the concept of Kelly consecrating one of his priests a bishop is not the problem. The problem is that Kelly, as head of the SSPV, believes that members of false religions can be saved and is a heretic.

The Society of St. Pius V, The Roman Catholic, Winter, 2005, p. 54: “Q. Do Catholics believe that non-Catholics cannot be saved. A. No.”

His group also refuses sacraments to those who believe (as the Church has defined) that only baptized Catholics can be saved. Thus, no Catholic should receive the sacraments from his priests at all, since they are imposing and notorious about their heretical position.

Interested and wondering

Hi Brothers,

I have been studying the material on your website and I believe what you say about "no salvation outside the catholic church." Many people today are teaching universal salvation, and it is so appalling! I'm not at this moment a sedevacantist but I understand that even if you gave popes john XXIII though Benedict XVI the benefit of the dought the fact remains that it is clear that they were lax when it come to teaching "no salvation outside the church."

I'm 19 years old and have grown up in the Novus ordo mass, I just recently discovered the beauty of the tridentine mass at the indult church downtown and I wonder why in the world did we need the change? The Novus ordo seems so empty now and I question the "for you and for all" in the consecration when the words of our lord are "for you and for many." I honestly feel that the more I look into tradition the more I feel disillusioned with the changes of Vatican II. But If I were to embrace the sedevacantist position…

God Bless,

Glenn

MHFM: It’s great to hear about your interest in these days of darkness. You ask: why did they have to change the Mass? The answer is they didn’t. A group of manifestly heretical conspirators, headed by a manifestly heretical antipope, changed the Mass into a Protestant service with the help of Protestant ministers.

Regarding Benedict XVI being “lax” on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, he isn’t merely “lax”; he utterly rejects the dogma. He holds that we shouldn’t even convert Protestants and schismatics, as our material documents. The Novus Ordo feels so empty, as you mentioned, because Christ isn’t present there, and it’s nothing more than a Protestant service posing as a Catholic Mass which people must totally avoid. We hope you continue in the direction which God and Our Lady are leading you: the sedevacantist position and a full rejection of the Counter Church in fidelity to “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Praying 3 Hail Marys for specific intentions – such as that you become convinced of the sedevacantist position if God wants you to (and He does) – is very powerful and something we recommend.

Defending Christmas gifts for heretics

Dear Dimond brother,

Just read your e-exchnage re Xmas presents; what a miserable pair of no good turds are yous....

Coomaraswamy?

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter Dimond,

I am curious to know your attitude towards Rama Coomaraswamy, who choose to be Hindu, Perennialist and pretended also to be Traditionalist Catholic. I ask because you have usually a page or pages on several prominent persons of the Traditionalist movement, but I cannot find anything specifically on Rama Coomaraswamy on your website.

Kind regards,

Lucio Mascarenhas, Bombay, India.

MHFM: Thanks for the question. We don’t know anything about him being a Hindu, but he definitely denied the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. He obstinately held that “pagans” can be saved. Those were the words he used in one of his articles. He even stated in one of his writings something to the effect that it would be wrong to think that most pagans are saved; in other words, many pagans can be saved, but it’s wrong to think that more than half (of the hundreds and hundreds of millions out there) are saved. Coomaraswamy was unfortunately a man who had no real Faith in Christ. He didn’t believe that Christ was important enough that all the pagans had to know Him.

1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life.”

“Now this is life everlasting, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

As Pope Leo XIII says, he who rejects one dogma rejects all Faith. He rejected the Revealer of the dogmas by refusing to accept the content of the dogma which He revealed. Coomaraswamy was, very sadly but entirely through his own fault, a heretic. One of us spoke with him a few years ago in an attempt to change his mind about the issue, but he was not interested in abandoning his heresy.

B-16 playing them like a fiddle

MHFM: A reader of ours was recently conversing via e-mail with the Novus Ordo “priest” named “Fr.” Brian Harrison. (Harrison is a man who attempts, to no avail, to explain away every heresy of the post-Vatican II sect.) In his e-mail, there was a very interesting comment. Harrison wrote:

BH: “…I presume you've heard that Pope Benedict XVI has ordered that "pro multis" in the new Mass be retranslated correctly in all languages so as to say "for many" instead of "for all". (Why would an evil anti-Pope do that, if he thought that keeping the translation "for all" - which he could very easily have done - made sure that the vernacular "Masses" remained invalid,as most sedevacantists maintain?) I am saying "for many" already in my English Masses. I'm not going to wait years before the next edition of the Missal comes out!)”

Notice that Harrison – and many other dupes in the Novus Ordo sect like him – is being played by Benedict XVI like a fiddle. Remember, Antipope Benedict XVI just finished the most heretical stretch of his life, during which he committed numerous acts of heresy and schism in non-Catholic temples. He was also initiated into the false religion of Islam by public prayer toward Mecca in a mosque on Nov. 30, 2006. God allowed all of this heavy duty heresy and apostasy to come out quite publicly so that the whole world could see the satanic beast’s true colors. Our readers will also recall that we wrote at the time that since Antipope Benedict XVI did this, we expected him to do some conservative things in order to deceive “conservative” members of the Novus Ordo.

Shortly thereafter and around the same time, Antipope Benedict XVI said and did a few conservative things in order to deceive bad willed heretics such as the “priest” mentioned above. One of those things was to approve a statement which criticized the translation of pro multis as “for all.” Whether any such change ever gets implemented is another question. Nevertheless, the fact that one of Benedict XVI’s “cardinals” even discussed such a thing makes all the “conservative” heretics in the Novus Ordo forget about Benedict XVI’s apostasy. Notice that Harrison is diving for the bait.

So, to answer his question: why would an evil antipope mention that “pro multis” should be translated as “for many”? ) 1) To deceive people like you, BH, because so long as you accept as a Catholic a man who has been initiated (for the whole world to see) into Islam, it doesn’t matter how many true Masses you attend, you are headed for Hell. 2) Almost all of the “priests” are invalid anyway, so even if they were using a 100% correct form of consecration, it would still be invalid. 3) The deletion of mysterium fidei (“the mystery of faith”) still causes a doubt about the validity.

But let’s focus in on #1. After deeper consideration, Benedict XVI’s Nov. 30, 2006 activity in the Blue Mosque wasn’t just a heinous act of apostasy. It is absolutely true to say that Benedict XVI was initiated into Islam. Benedict XVI followed the Muslim’s command to turn toward “the Kiblah” – the direction of Mecca. Then the prayer began. Benedict XVI prayed like the Muslims toward Mecca in a mosque. He even crossed his arms in the Muslim prayer gestured called “the gesture of tranquility.” Benedict XVI was initiated into Islam – no doubt about it. He holds that one can be a Muslim and a “Catholic” at the same time – it’s all the same “God” according to him.

We cannot emphasize enough that Benedict XVI’s act was arguably the most notorious and worst act of apostasy since the promulgation of the Gospel, simply because of how many people saw it, combined with the position that Benedict XVI purports to hold and what he manifested and where he manifested it. Since it was carried on the major news networks all over the world and in Muslim countries, an unknown multitude (over a billion?) witnessed this scandal of immeasurable proportions: the alleged leader of the world’s Christians praying like a Muslim toward Mecca in a mosque. It was truly a signal moment which God allowed the whole world to see, to register, to take in, so that, whatever occurred hereafter (B-16 giving back the Latin Mass?), it would be there, on record, for Judgment Day, to convict and condemn if people fail to denounce this man as a non-Catholic apostate or continue to accept him because they consider other things more important than whether he denies Christ.

Bowled over by video and website

I am watching the new mass video and I am absolutely bowled over. By the way, fantastic website.

I was raised catholic, baptized, confirmed...but fell away from RCC after I visited a Newman Center at University of KY that made a mockery out of the mass that I was familiar with. I was an altar boy and knew the latin responses and even considered the priesthood at one time.

After 20 years of 4 white walls and a 50-minute sermon, protestantism has lost its appeal ...I tried several versions including being a full blown calvinist for some time.

I am now attending a traditional anglican church that offers "mass" with the priest facing to the back...it sounds like the Roman Missal
translated to English and is far more respectful than any "catholic" church in this area. It is based on the 1928 BCP and feels like the
church of my youth - minus the Latin of course.

This Anglican body (Anglican Province of America) is far more worshipful. than any catholic church around here. For instance, I
attended St. John Neumann Catholic on the Vigil of Immaculate Conception and was aghast at the building - picasso art...silly women
parading all over the sanctuary...women serving communion...it was hideous… The Sedevacantist position seems to be more consistent.....so what can I do as a rebound catholic who desires a true communion with our savior and a valid worship? There are no Tridentine masses within 150 miles of Charlotte.

sincerely and frustrated,

Michael Thayer

MHFM: It’s great to hear about your interest. The first thing is to stop going to the invalid Anglican church. The second thing is to make the Council of Trent’s profession of Faith for converts and begin praying the Rosary each day, if you’re aren’t already doing so.

The Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts

Please call us and we can discuss your dilemma about where to go, if there is any place for you to go. We look forward to hearing from you.

Defending JP2

Shame on you for trashing Pope John Paul II. He was a great man, even if you think otherwise. Where did the Church's teachings on obedience get lost in your translation? As Christ was obedient from the Cross, so too were his disciples to their leaders, all the way on 21 centuries later. Obedience is a Catholic virtue, and you guys seem to have ignored it. The pre-Vatican II traditionalists were outvoted. I have nothing against the Latin Mass, but rules are rules. Get with the program. I will pray for you. Remember what Christ said about misleading people.....

Dweb

MHFM: How deceived and bad willed so many people are… I guess that’s why Our Lord spoke about how few find the way to salvation (Matthew 7:13). Here are just two quotes demonstrating that John Paul II was one of the most wicked apostates in history.

John Paul II, Message to "Grand Sheikh Mohammed," Feb. 24, 2000: "Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture... I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture..."

John Paul II, March 21, 2000: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan...”[41]

Radio program

Hi,

I was looking at your website and I saw the page about the reaction to your radio address on "coast to coast." It sounds like something that could have been interesting to listen to. Is there anyway that one could possibly listen to an audio recording of the program?

thanks,

Glenn

MHFM: Thanks for the question. Unfortunately no, the only way to listen to it is through coast to coast.

Musical instruments at Mass?

Dear Brother: Please could you tell me if Pope Pius X (or maybe another Pontiff) wrote a teaching regarding the use of musical instruments during the Mass. On Midnight Mass this year, we had a stringed quartet during the Mass, and I am wondering if this is Traditional? I have been told that only the organ is to be used in the Sacred Liturgy. Could you please clarify this teaching? Thank you and God Bless.

Phil and Bryanne Weber

MHFM: Thanks for the question. In his encyclical Musicae sacra, issued on Christmas of 1955, Pope Pius XII addressed this question. He stated:

Pope Pius XII, Musicae sacra (#58-59), Dec. 25, 1955: “Among the musical instruments that have a place in church the organ rightly holds the principal position, since it is especially fitted for the sacred chants and sacred rites… Besides the organ, other instruments can be called upon to give great help in attaining the lofty purpose of sacred music, so long as they play nothing profane, nothing clamorous or strident and nothing at variance with the sacred services or the dignity of the place. Among these the violin and other musical instruments that use the bow are outstanding because, when they are played by themselves or with other stringed instruments or with the organ, they express the joyous and sad sentiments of the soul with an indescribable power.”

Changing consecration

Brother Dimond,

An aquaintance who believes the NO Mass is valid responded to my citation of Pius V, Council of Trent, regarding the valid words of the consecration of the wine, in this manner:" He refers to how Pius V established excommunication for modifications to the Mass done 'without Our approval and consent'. That was an invocation of the 'Royal We,' meaning, the approval and consent of a reigning Pontiff. And, the Novus Ordo Mass did have the approval and consent of a reigning Pontiff.” If one accepts that none of the Vatican II popes involved was/is a valid pope, the problem is resolved. In the case of a valid pope, e.g., Pius XII, does the argument of the "Royal We" apply? I recall seeing in a writing of John Paul II that he used, "I," rather than ,"We." Does this have any significance in the matter?

In a similar situation, I quoted from Pius XI's encyclical, Mortalium animos, to a priest friend, regarding non-Catholics, etc. He replied that
Vatican II 'changed all that." If there is a "Royal We" principle, then Vatican II (regarding the new ecumenism) would be right. If the "Royal We" does not pass through from doctrine-to-doctrine, (regarding theTridentine Mass, and the words of consecration, Vatican II would be right, again. On the other hand, maybe there's NO SUCH THING AS A "ROYAL WE" PRINCIPLE.

-bucky

MHFM: A pope can change disciplinary matters, but he cannot touch matters of Faith or matters pertaining to the “substance of the sacraments.”

Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo, Dec. 26, 1910:
"it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments" (Denz. 2147a)

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947:
"the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign..."

The words of consecration pertain to the substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist because they were specifically instituted by Our Lord. Thus, not even a true pope could change them.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo," Decree of union with the Armenians:
"THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR WITH WHICH HE EFFECTED THIS SACRAMENT." (Denzinger 698)

Rock music video

Dear brother Dimond, the information on the rock video is amazing, but do you know if he has turned catholic? He’s very sincere and I was
wondering if you have given him catholic information?
thanks.

MHFM: [Note: this person is referring to the video we sell called Rock and Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution, by a Protestant named Joe Schimmel.] We have no information that Joe Schimmel became a Catholic. We sent him a package a few years back in the hope of converting him. We have also tried to call him numerous times, but were unable to reach him. He’s a Protestant who rejects the Catholic Church and promotes the heresy of faith alone. While he’s sincere about some things, unfortunately he’s not sincere overall. We hope he becomes so, but if he were truly sincere he would see that Protestantism is simply a man-made religion. Nevertheless, for those who haven’t seen his video, it’s quite powerful. It exposes the major rock bands of the past few decades and shows how the Devil worked through them. It’s the most powerful tape we’ve seen exposing rock music, and the best thing for young people immersed in the pagan culture – or for those who don’t believe in the existence of the Devil – to see to awaken them to a realization of the spiritual battle that is being waged. We know people who have been basically converted to a belief the supernatural and in the existence of the Devil by watching that video. It can be ordered at our online store.

Community

How many people are in your religious community?

MHFM: Currently there are four people in the community.

St. Alphonsus and Padre Pio

I have some thelogical question, by the way: Since St. Alphonsus Liguori believed in BOB and BOD, we are bound to believe that he did not believe in this at least in the hour of death, because by the infallibility of canonization we know that he is a saint, and also we know that one can only go to heaven if he believes in the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, right?

However, I don't know about Padre Pio, because he wasn't canonized (as there is no pope), and he was outside the church by following an antipope. If he was truly sincere, he would have been enlightened that the "pope" was antipope, at least at the hour of his death.

Chan…

MHFM: As we’ve pointed out before, there’s a difference between believing in baptism of desire and blood for unbaptized catechumens only and believing that it could apply to Jews, pagans, Muslims, etc. (as most do). Both are wrong and incompatible with the infallible teaching of the Church, but one could believe in the former idea (for catechumens only) in good faith until all the evidence is presented to him or her. The latter (which is held by most) is blatantly contary to Catholic dogma and would have to be rejected immediately by those familiar with the solemn definitions. The following link is to another section of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation which addresses this issue. This section is new to the 2^nd edition.

How can Baptism of desire be contrary to dogma when... [PDF File]

It refutes those who say that it’s impossible for baptism of desire to be contrary to dogma if a saint such as Alphonsus Liguori believed in it. Some don’t know that St. Alphonsus also held that the words “This is My Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood” are sufficient for a valid consecration; he was dead wrong. It was interesting to recently read from a group of sedevacantists who are hog-wild about “baptism of desire” (and constantly make reference to St. Alphonsus on the issue) try to deal with St. Alphonsus’s error on the words of consecration, especially since one of them (John L.) has correctly said that the Council of Florence (before St. Alphonsus) dogmatically declared the words of consecration. Since they hold the form of consecration to be all the words mentioned by the Council of Florence, which is contrary to St. Alphonsus’s position, they would have to admit – but are too dishonest and bad willed to do so – that St. Alphonsus contradicted, was unaware of or didn’t understand the significance of the Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V’s De Defectibus on the words of consecration. But no… in their religion of man, this is impossible since theologians are the proximate rule of Faith, as the aforementioned fellow also ridiculously and wrongly declared. But in the Catholic Church, no saint or theologian is infallible and it’s possible for a saint to be confused about a dogmatic issue or mis-read a text pertaining to a dogmatic issue or fail to understand the significance of a text pertaining to a dogmatic issue, as the above section proves.

In fact, some time back we received a letter from an individual who was attending the New Mass and was troubled by our arguments against its validity. He struggled with the issue of whether to go to the New Mass until he read St. Alphonsus’s (wrong) opinion on the words of consecration. After reading St. Alphonsus’s opinion, the individual was convinced to remain at the New Mass. This is a prime example of why the Church teaches that it’s not Catholic to follow the opinion of a saint or theologian above a papal bull or papal decree; it’s a prime example of how those who obstinately elevate the opinion of a saint above an authoritative papal bull do so to their own damnation.

Regarding Padre Pio, even though he was favored with extraordinary gifts by God, he didn’t know everything. People really have a problem with following man today. St. Vincent Ferrer worked miracles during the Great Western Schism while serving as the confessor of the invalid Antipope Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna). God doesn’t reveal everything even to great saints. This should be quite obvious.

It’s interesting that you ask about Padre Pio. Someone recently wrote in to a newspaper about our book on Padre Pio. The person asserted that Padre Pio was actually in favor of the heretical idea that members of false religions can be saved. In our book on Padre Pio, it’s pointed out that many statements are attributed to him which he never made. The most famous is the statement that Padre Pio supposedly made to John Paul II: “One day you will be pope.” John Paul II himself admitted that Padre Pio never told him this, but it’s widely held that he did. These people would have us believe that Padre Pio, who told people that they were in mortal sin for dressing immodestly and failing to be honest in confession, said that a Protestant and a Jew who rejected the Catholic Faith and confession altogether would be saved without being Catholic. It’s ridiculous; it would make a mockery of all the hours he spent in confession, as if he held that one who rejected the Sacrament of Penance, Our Lady, etc. could go to Heaven. People spread such lies in order to justify their non-Catholic family members, or for some other reason. We’ve discovered to our dismay that many people, including those who claim to be traditional Catholics, are not honest. One minute they tell you that their priest doesn’t believe in salvation outside the Church, and the next they are defending that very heresy. Thus, it’s not surprising at all that Padre Pio, one of the most famous men in the world at his time, the most photographed and perhaps the most admired, would have many, many statements attributed to him by people who, in their vanity, wanted to have Padre Pio saying this or that. Further, even if Padre Pio said such things (which we don’t believe that he did at all), he would have been teaching heresy. In fact, if somone looking like Padre Pio made a miraculous appearance today (and was even accompanied by an angel) and told you that a Jew or a heretic can be saved, a Catholic must say to him: YOU ARE ANATHEMA.

Galatians 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

The faithless apostate who wrote in to the newspaper asserting that Padre Pio’s statements show that there is salvation “outside” the Church doesn’t understand this because he’s not remotely Christian. He’s a believer in man, not Christ. People like him reveal that they don’t have the slightest faith in Christ, but are complete worshippers of man. They elevate a statement they think or someone said Padre Pio made above an infallible definition of the Church. It’s despicable. In other words, they put man above Christ. They are an abomination, and Jesus Christ will vomit them out of His mouth. The fact is that if you read the letters of Padre Pio you will see that there is nothing at all which reflects in the slightest way the heretical teaching that there is salvation for those who die outside the Church.

Deeply concerned

Dear Brothers

I am deeply concerned about the turmoil in the Church and even more so since I have been studying the material from your web site. I have gone back to Council and Papal documents and I can't help but agree with your logic…

However, my real Reason for writing is to see if you have any comments about Fr. Gobbi and the MMP. Through-out the messages we are told numerous times that JPII is her Pope and that she has groomed him from early in his life. I know your feelings on JPII and I can draw conclusions about the MMP messages too from that view point. So, do you know of anything specific on this topic?...I am a 78yr old dyed in the wool Catholic who served the Tridentine mass for about 15 years but unfortunately have had no access to it in 37 yrs. My wife and I go to the NO mass almost every day and say our rosary daily as well. I was commenting to her not too long ago that we ought to be saints by now but we are not; something just seems to be wrong. Needless to say the NO is not a prayable mass and seems also to be graceless as well. We are in the Archdiocese of St. Paul MInneapolis which is a big area and there is only one Church in this huge diocese that has the Real Mass at 3 weekend masses once a week. What a shame. Only Jesus can save us; he has to shorten these times like he said.

Most respectfully

Jim Fink

MHFM Jim, Gobbi said that the triumph of Our Lady would take place by the year 2000. In his view, the "triumph" involved some sort of universal restoration. That didn't happen.

But the fact that Gobbi said he was told that John Paul II is “Mary’s pope” is all a truly believing Catholic needs to know to see that the revelation is not from God, but from the Devil. John Paul II promoted religions which are false, demonic and which reject the true God, as our material proves in detail. Those who still think that he might have been “Mary’s pope” after seeing the evidence against him - evidence covered on this website and in our DVD - have a serious problem with Faith in Jesus Christ and Catholic dogma.

You mentioned that you noticed that something is wrong. What’s wrong is that you’re going to an invalid “Mass” and attending a completely empty church which has defected to a new religion. We understand that you placed an order. We hope that you received the material and review it. We hope that you stop going to the invalid New Mass because Christ is not present there. It's a matter of salvation. We're glad that you're deeply concerned; it demonstrates a level of interest. The biggest problem today is lack of interest. Most people are damned because they don't care or don't care enough about the truth, the things of God and matters of salvation. It's critical that you act upon this information, which is based on the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

St. Cyprian on baptism

The book points out St. Cyprian's error that non-Catholics cannot confer baptism, but cites him saying that non-Catholics cannot receive baptism. Or am I misunderstanding? The book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation says:

---

Second, St. Augustine held that it was de fide that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of hell and St. Cyprian held that it was de fide that heretics cannot validly baptize. Both were dead wrong.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, 1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “...St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on unbaptized infants suffering the fires of hell]...”[400]

St. Cyprian, 254 A.D.: “We... judging and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the Church] is able to be baptized...”[401]

MHFM: St. Cyprian wrongly held that all baptisms among heretics (i.e. received by or conferred by heretics) are invalid. "He [St. Cyprian] did it always by affirming that heretics and schismatics had no power to give Baptism..." (Tixeront, History of Dogmas, p. 369)

Thus, one legitimately speaks of St. Cyprian as holding that no heretic can confer baptism in the same context as his teaching that no heretic can receive baptism - for all baptisms among (received by or conferred by) sect members are invalid, according to his erroneous teaching. For those who haven’t read the book, this came up in the discussion about how theologians, fathers and doctors of the Church have made many errors and are not infallible. St. Cyprian thought his position was the position of tradition and he was completely wrong. This is a powerful example of the fact that the infalliblity of the Magisterium is not given to theologians or to doctors of the Church, contrary to what many heretics are (in effect) asserting today.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”^{^[42]}

Inviting heretics?

Dear MHFM, i ve just read your E-exchanges and was attracted by your thoughts about no christmas celebration with heretics. may i have your thoughts on whether it is reasonable to invite a non catholic friend to a catholic wedding celebration. i have read your thoughts on why a catholic cannot attend a noncatholic weeding or the reception but i am not sure of what you think of the reverse. thanks for your time

frank

MHFM: We would say that if the person is open to conversion (i.e., has demonstrated a sincere interest in possibly converting), then contact with traditional Catholics at something such as a wedding might increase his interest in the Catholic Faith, and thus facilitate his conversion, by getting to know more of those who practice it. But if it’s a friend or a family member who has obstinately rejected the Faith or remained obstinately united with the Novus Ordo sect or some other sect, then one should definitely not invite such a person; for that would be to celebrate the event with a heretic – as if he is a fellow Catholic who possesses the true Faith.

No Outrage

MHFM: Did you notice that there was basically no outrage at the fact that Antipope Benedict XVI went into Eastern Schismatic churches on his trip to Turkey? His act of apostasy in the mosque sparked some outrage, but his joint declaration with the schismatic patriarch and other acts of schism were considered no big deal because they’ve become so frequent, so typical. On his trip to Turkey alone, he went into at least two different schismatic cathedrals (to manifest heresy by deed) and met with three different schismatic patriarchs. We’re at the point now in the post-Vatican II apostasy that, for most, it’s not really a big deal. He stops into schismatic churches, prays with them, etc. like he’s stopping by McDonald’s. Truly, for him to go into schismatic churches on his trips is about as frequent and accepted by most as for him to stop by the local “Catholic” churches.

A word of warning

MHFM: Since Benedict XVI recently completed perhaps the most heretical week of his life with his recent trip-of-apostasy to Turkey (during which the whole world saw him endorse and embrace the false religion of Islam in a mosque), expect some conservative things to come from him, either statements or actions. That’s his modus operandi. That’s the game the Devil is playing in these last days: apostasy mixed with occasional conservative words, in order to keep those who receive not the love of the truth inside the false Vatican II sect – meanwhile they have accepted apostasy and false religions by accepting as Catholic the man who endorses them.

Benedict XVI teaches the most outrageous heresies, commits acts of apostasy and schism, and then makes the bad willed forget about it by talking about “relativism” or a wider permission for the Latin Mass or some other conservative thing which tickles their ears. The bad willed usually forget about his acts of heresy and apostasy shortly after they are done with, and are carried away by a few conservative words.

Against Eastern Orthodox

Recently I confronted an Eastern Schismatic on the internet. He could not reply to questions in your article on E"O" [against the Eastern Orthodox] and he was enraged when I asked him why they venerated Constantine XI the last Byzantine Emperor who died a Catholic and in full communion with Rome. (Feast day May 30th on E"O" calendar) He compared post Eastern-Schism Catholics to Mahomet and Buddha before I confronted him. I posted a link to your videos so he couldn't use Vatican II antipopes to justify his cause.
Eastern Schismatics simply can't really follow any authority, either ecclesiastical or secular.

MHFM: We’re glad to hear that you were able to use the arguments. [He’s referring to an E-Exchange we posted a few weeks back against Eastern Orthodoxy]. Some can see it so clearly, but unfortunately, through bad will, many can’t. It’s sort of like a follower of Episcopalianism or Anglicanism who never deeply thinks about the origins of his religion. If he would only make the effort or demonstrate the honesty to internalize the fact that he is following a “Church” that separated itself from the Catholic Church simply because King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, perhaps he would see how outrageous it is for him to follow such a “Church.”

Likewise, if one just deeply and honestly considers the “logic” of Eastern Orthodoxy – which holds all bishops equal and therefore must logically hold all councils with equal numbers of bishops to have the same authority, including many false councils in the early Church – one sees that in their religion there could be no binding dogmatic council at all. Their religion is a fraud, and their claim to uphold the first seven councils as dogmatic a complete farce.

No Christmas gifts for heretics

I have asked the children, during Advent to spend 15 minutes with reading spiritual works - (my selection) for them, each day. Our Christmas tree is decorated simply during the Advent season with purple balls with a little gold & white accent ornamentation -until Christmas Eve which I will get the other Christmas ornaments down to let the children finish decorating it with the other ornaments... Any other suggestions or comments to what we are doing now would be very greatfully received,

thanks so much,

melanie

MHFM: Thanks for the email. At this time of year it’s necessary to point out something some traditional Catholics don’t seem to recognize, but should. Traditional Catholics should not give Christmas gifts to heretics, other non-Catholics, members of the Novus Ordo, or false traditionalists.

[Note: we’re speaking here of one’s family members, friends, etc. who have rejected, or failed to live up to, the full truth of the Catholic Faith after one has presented it to them. (If one has not yet presented the traditional Catholic Faith to such non-Catholic family members and friends, members of the Novus Ordo, etc., then one has failed to live up to one’s duty to spread the Catholic Faith and is sinning by omission.) Thus, we’re not speaking here about a person who is truly interested in the Catholic Faith or in the process of conversion.]

It’s part of the Catholic Faith that Catholics cannot have communion with heretics. To give a Christmas gift to a heretic or to another non-Catholic is to honor a person who rejects God and His truth and is on the road to damnation. It is to give a person who rejects the truth of God the false impression that God is pleased with him (that he’s worthy of a reward) – or that what he’s doing with regard to God makes him worthy of a reward – when, in truth, he is headed for damnation. All over the New Testament we find instructions on generally how to deal with people who reject the truth of God. The message is clear and consistent. Pope Pius XI quotes a portion of one of these clear scriptural instructions in Mortalium Animos:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”

In light of this, it’s quite obvious that a Catholic cannot exchange Christmas gifts with someone who “brings not this doctrine” [i.e., fully authentic traditional Catholic doctrine] – such as a Protestant, a follower of the Novus Ordo, some other non-Catholic, or a false traditionalist. (By the way, this verse also shows us that we shouldn’t say “God bless” to a heretic or to a person outside the Church because God does not bless a person in such a state.) In the citation above, Pope Pius XI does not quote verse eleven of the 2^nd Epistle of St. John, which states: “For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicates with his wicked works.”

To give a Christmas gift to a person rejecting the truth of God is to communicate with his wickedness by honoring him in his state. We see the same scriptural message on how to deal with non-Catholics in many other places in the New Testament, such as in Titus 3:10; II Thess. 3:6,14; 1 Cor. 5:11; etc.

Therefore, it’s clear that Catholics should not celebrate Christmas with non-Catholics, false traditionalists or members of the Novus Ordo. Don’t have them over on Christmas for the exchanging of gifts or for Christmas dinner. Explain to them why you cannot do so by once again charitably calling them to conversion or a change of position. If a non-Catholic friend or family member gives you a gift and wonders why you didn’t reciprocate, you should charitably explain to him or her that you cannot give a gift to someone who is outside the true Church or rejecting such and such a teaching of the true Church or going to a false Mass.

Those who have a major problem with this conclusion, as some certainly will, given the bad will of most men – a conclusion which flows so clearly from scriptural and apostolic doctrine – have a problem with it because they don’t stand for the Faith in their everyday lives. They have a problem with it because they are liberal, and they are respecters of man more than of God. They don’t hate evil, and the Faith doesn’t inform every aspect of their dealings.

Greetings from Moscow

Good morning. My name is Maxim Bychkov. I live in Moscow. I'm 26 year old. I'm catholic. In modern world very difficult to be catholic. I ask Your prayers about me.

Maxim Bychkov 12.2006

Lucy dead?

dear brother micheal and peter- do you know about the website that includes the names of camelite nuns that has died?

sister lucia name was included it stated that she was born march 22 1907, proffesed october 1928 and died may 31 1949 comments please.

mark

MHFM: As we pointed out in the article, we believe that she died a little later than that: shortly before Vatican II and shortly after the Fuentes interview. However, this fact serves to show that there is something fishy going on that most people don’t realize.

Little girls

Greetings,

As a former little girl, I take exception to your comparison of the boorish Mr. Sungenis to little girls. There are lots of little girls who are made of sterner stuff. Consider the true story of a poor little Irish girl told in Stories from the Catechist. The child attended a Catholic school run by nuns.

One day, the Protestants came by, and bribed the impoverished mother into giving them access to her child in exchange for them giving the mother a blanket. When the girl came home, the mother announced that the girl would be going to a Protestant school from now on. The child immediately saw that her soul was in danger, and expressed her horror to her mother that she had sold her soul for a blanket. The mother was not to be dissuaded. The child sank to her knees and asked the Blessed Mother to let her die rather than become a Protestant. Her prayer was granted and her mother found her dead the next morning.

Regards,

Miss Ross

MHFM: Good point… There’s also this story:

“A Calvinist nobleman was once disputing about the real presence with the father of St. Jane Frances de Chantal. Frances was at that time only five years of age. Whilst the dispute was going on she advanced and said to the nobleman: ‘What, sir! do you not believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Blessed Sacrament, and yet he has told us that he is present? You then make him a liar. If you dared attack the honor of the king, my father would defend it at the risk of his life, and even at the cost of yours; what have you then to expect from God for calling his Son a liar?’ The Calvinist was greatly surprised at the child's zeal, and endeavored to appease his young adversary with presents; but full of love for her holy faith, she took his gifts and threw them into the fire, saying ‘Thus shall all those burn in Hell who do not believe the words of Jesus Christ.’” (quoted by Fr. Michael Muller, The Catholic Dogma, Part 1, #7)

Musician at Prot. church

Brother Dimond,

What is your opinion on the matter of Catholic musicians serving as musicians at Protestant churches? I was organist/choir director for many
years at an Episcopal church, and have auditioned for another position recently available. It pays more than I have ever received for a church
job and the extra income for this retiree is desperately needed (I have a MA Degree in Sacred Music).

Reading your material has caused me to give the matter some consideration. It will be purely a job, nothing more.

According to responses on a website which invites comments on the state of Catholic Church music, as found in the ubiquitous "Glory and Praise" and "Gather," a multitude of Catholic musicians have fled to employment at Episcopal churches for the opportunity to be engaged in the performance of good quality music. I am one of them, having quit my short tenure at our local Novus Ordo church. I have also recently stopped attending there.

MHFM: No, one couldn’t have a job as an organist/choir director for a Protestant church because one would be actively assisting non-Catholic worship. It would be forbidden to a Catholic under pain of mortal sin. We hope that answers your question.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics…”[44]

We will have more quotes dealing with this point in a future work we are going to publish.

Marriage

I've thought of an argument that isn't insurmountable based on existing MHFM research but is still quite disturbing: With the Catholic church in the seemingly state of physical disunity because of the chaos of the V2 sect, it has become an extraordinaryly hard task for a man to meet a woman both of which hold or intend to hold the Catholic faith upon marriage. (I say 'intend' because a Catholic could meet a non Catholic and help them to convert before marriage. However, I have reason to think this is not a good strategy.) I don't know any females that hold the sedevatantist position. This isn't a surprising fact considering all the variables. I now hold this position, myself. So, I find myself seeking females with the philosophical capacity to listen to the case for a Catholic faith. Obviously this is a challenged task with a secular raised woman. To be on the grounds of a V2 sect church, could make this challenge statistically better; but, I have not done this yet. I'm now praying to be lead to a mate.

I think the topic of 'more than 40 years without a pope' isn't the priority issue for the theologian. The higher priority is dealing with the topic of whether perpetual generations of Catholic families are required for the Catholic Church to survive over time. The Catholic Church needs a living population just as much as it needs a priest. Logically following, aren't valid Catholic families required to exist to populate the Church and heaven? Doesn't God need and want marriages to happen and children to be born? One of the variables has to give. Is the variable of 'the final days' the only explanation. (It wouldn't be the first surprise of that kind this month. Colorado flipped from Republican to Democrat last week...a lot sooner than I expected it would.)

My questions:

1. Are there pockets of 'family' Catholics upholding the faith elsewhere in the world? I don't know where to look in the USA.

2. Do you think God would allow his Catholic Church to be increasingly maintained only by Catholic singles instead of marriages? I agree it's not an impossibility.

3. Does the fact that it is 'extra hard to find a mate' only supply more evidence that we are in the "final days"?

4. Has any church doctor realized the seeming problem of mass apostasy for generation after generation?

5. My final concern is that the continuation of God's creation that would happen in a Catholic family does not seem right to be stopped by negative forces. Is this happening?

My motivation for writing is that I'm further stunned because the task of finding a mate is now somewhat removed from my choices. I want to get married. I prey to get married. I believe that God is able to lead me to a mate. I intend to actively do my part of the search. Previously, singles have chosen by one reason or another to be single. I choose not to be single; but, I am with no potential mates. I logically don't like this choice because marriage should be better for both her and I. A good marriage can only bestow more grace.

Do you agree: It's not in my best interest as a Catholic to have children with a non Catholic women? Is a Catholic allowed to have children with a non Catholic?

Am I being too much of a perfectionist? My family accuses me of this. Thank you for your answers last email; they helped my make a correct choice.

Please share these concerns and answer what you can?

Rob

MHFM: Rob, yes, there are pockets of Catholic families keeping the Faith all over the world and in this country. Before one pursues marriage, however, he should attentively search out whether God might be calling him to a vocation or to single life. This should be done in prayer, and also by reading the first chapter of St. Alphonsus's The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, which deals with the advantanges of celibacy over marriage. Many more are called not to marry than realize it. That being said, you may be called to marriage, and the fact that it’s so hard to find good Catholic women is a sign of the times.

You couldn't enter into a marriage with a non-Catholic, since the Catholic Church condemns mixed marriages.

Pope Benedict XIV, Magnae Nobis (# 2-3) June 29, 1748: “Nor is it necessary for us to prove in full the antiquity of the discipline by which the Apostolic See always condemned the marriage of Catholics with heretics ... We hold that the marriages of Catholics with heretics are altogether to be avoided, and as far as it depends on us, We aim to keep them far from the Catholic Church ... His Holiness grieves very much that some Catholics today are demented in their base love. They no longer shrink from these detestable marriages which the Church has always condemned and forbidden.”

We hope this answered most of your questions.

Confession where?

Hi,

I just want to ensure I follow the right path or way. I do not have any valid priests or non Vatican 2 chuches in my area, in fact I am sure that
the priest's in all the local parishes support vatican 2, where can I go to get a valid confession? I know I can keep Sunday Holy by praying the Rosary, but if I have no priest to go to, how can I confess my sins? I have read about general confession, but what exactly does that mean.

Despite quite a few priests telling me that you are dead wrong in your teachings,( in fact one is a much older pre-vatican 2 ordained priest), I
still feel in my heart that what you say is true, you have changed my life, thank you.

Gene

MHFM: Gene, a general confession is a confession of all of the mortal sins in one’s entire life that one committed after baptism (if one committed mortal sins). Those who have confessed some mortal sins to priests ordained in the new rite of ordination need to confess those sins to a validly ordained priest. (If he’s a diocesan priest, that would be before June 18, 1968.) If a person has committed mortal sin and needs to go to Confession, he can go to a Novus Ordo priest who was ordained in the Traditional Rite of Ordination as long as the priest says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This can be done if a person needs to go to Confession. But one cannot go to his false “Mass,” of course.

A devastating act

MHFM: Benedict XVI’s recent act of praying in a mosque toward Mecca like the Muslims was a very devastating act – devastating, that is, to his claim to be pope and to all who claim that he is the pope. We’ve received many e-mails from people about this blatant act of apostasy. I mean, come on, what is one going to say about this one? It’s a striking confirmation, for any who doubted, of the truth of what we’ve been saying about him. Sedevacantism is growing; all the time more and more are seeing the truth that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, but rather the Devil’s counterfeit sect in the last days created by manifestly heretical antipopes. If you’ve been opposed to sedevacantism in the past, but now want to change your position, do not delay because of the fear of embarrassment about having been wrong. The important thing is to change your position and stand for the truth. True Catholics will immediately embrace all those who want to change their positions and stand for the truth.

Just a day or so ago, when one of us had to travel out of the monastery, a conversation started (as sometimes happens) with a stranger. This person was a professing Novus Ordo “Catholic” who was totally scandalized by Benedict XVI’s outrageous act. It provided a good opportunity to explain to her what’s really going on, and that Benedict XVI is not a true pope at all. But this shows us how important this information is: those who don’t have this information are in deep trouble; most of them are concluding that a pope of the Catholic Church officially endorses Islam and the acceptability of worshipping as the Muslims do. They are concluding that holding Jesus Christ to be God and holding Him not to be God are both acceptable; they are concluding that the diabolical and apostate sect of Islam is acceptable. They are embracing religious indifferentism and losing Faith in Jesus Christ as the only truth and Catholicism as the only true religion – as one would if one thinks that Benedict XVI represents authentic Catholicism. Their acceptance of this apostasy will not give them a Faith sufficient for salvation, but lead them to damnation. That’s why spreading this information is so important, so critical. Be evangelistic: spread the website, the DVDs, the books.

On Sungenis Article

Dear Dimond Brothers,

I heard the debate with Sungenis… and could not believe how stupid or evil or both Sungenis is. I told everybody about it.

Your latest article exposing him is simply awesome! I wish everybody who follows [his organization] could read it and see for themselves
the wickedness of Sungenis and his cohorts.

Keep up the great work!

Steve Speray

MHFM: Thanks, glad you liked the article. Some of our readers might consider your words too strong. They are not. Those who consider them too strong really need to consider how bad willed Mr. Sungenis is, how he’s made it his mission to defend manifest heretics, apostates and manifestly heretical documents, and how viciously he attacks those who stand for the truth.

Your article on Bob Sungenis and the debate was really excellent. His performance was dreadful with the most horrendous statement, in my opinion, being that if you say Vatican II was bad because its fruits were bad, then you'd have to say the Creation was bad because its fruit was the Fall! To me, that actually sounds blasphemous. His attack on Brother Michael's appearance on the Frank Whalen program
was also ridiculous and pathetic. That was a very interesting program, a sort of mini-tutorial of all the information on your website wrapped up into a concise and informative two hours, in spite of the goofy callers at the end (where do they get those people?!). Br. Michael did a wonderful job, as usual. As for the prophecy stuff, I find everything you both write about that to be fascinating and thoughtful; and I hope you're planning to write more on the subject. I was especially interested in Br. Michael's comment that the two witnesses were thought to be Saints Peter and Paul because it has always puzzled me how they would appear and convert lots of people and yet when Jesus returned shortly after their deaths, there would be little faith left on earth; unless, of course, Antichrist killed all the new converts, which raises more questions. Anyway, it's a very interesting subject for discussion; if you don't get all snitty about it like Bob Sungenis.

Keep up the good work! I'll be ordering lots of copies of your new book and am looking forward to your own radio program coming back online now that the book is done.

MHFM: Thanks for the kind words of support. Actually, the book that we’ve been working on that has caused a hiatus in the radio program is another book, not the 2^nd edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. This other book should be done soon as well.

A sample of sections that are new to the 2^nd edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation

MHFM: The 2^nd edition of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation is now available for order. You can order online at our store or you can call in your order or you can send it in. One copy of the book is $4.00. Below are three PDF Files which provide a sample of some of the points and sections that are entirely new to the 2^nd edition. In all, there are almost 40 pages of information that are new to the 2^nd edition. The 2^nd edition is 336 pages.

Sacred Scripture Against Invincible Ignorance - and the Evidence of the Immediate Dissemination of the Gospel throughout the world [PDF File]

About half of this short section of the book is new. Note: this is only one of a number of sections on “Invincible Ignorance” that are included in the book.

A Sample of a few of the other points and quotes that are new to the 2nd edition [PDF File]

This is just a small sample of a few of the points that are new. This doesn’t include the entire sections that are new, nor many other points that are new and incorporated into other sections.

The Table of Contents [PDF File]

This is what the Table of Contents for the 2^nd edition looks like. The sections in red are sections that are entirely new to the 2nd edition. Many of the sections not in red, however, have new points and quotes which have been added to them. The Table of Contents is somewhat more detailed in this edition, which makes things easier to find.

Order the book today, and have at your disposal the information you need to defend this crucial dogma and the necessity of water baptism against the constant attacks they face today. This is by far the most detailed book that has been written on the salvation dogma and the water baptism issue.

Liked debate

Dear Brother Peter and Brother Michael,

Bravissimo! Once again, the truth shone with unmistakable brilliance during your debate on sedevacantism. Mr. Golle completely disgraced himself with the mental contortions he had to employ to stick to his absurd positions. He spent the whole time making excuses for these VII antipopes. His whole defense seemed to be "I don't know if they really said that, but if they did they didn't mean it." Reminds me of Bill Clinton who famously said "it depends on what the meaning of is is." Certainly not the unmistakably clear language of the Catholic Church. I had the same thoughts as the writer of the email which you posted on E-exchanges -- Mr. Golle has no faith in God at all! So, thank you so much for your tremendous efforts on behalf of the truth. I love hearing it. God bless you!

Sincerely in Christ,

Margaret Moore

Faith at University

To show how ridiculous BOD is, every time I preach to pagans/atheists, they often ask me if it is true that one dies without Catholic Faith surely goes to hell before I mention the dogma. I always tell them they must convert or will definitely go into the everlasting fire, and they feel it's quite natural. Even atheists understand if God exists, to die without the true religion means hell.

I'm being persecuted in Adelaide University for holding Catholic Faith. I refuted a geology teacher because he taught evolutionism and I was driven out of the classroom. In an assignment of writing an article on engineering in general, I lamented the lack of Catholic spirituality in modern architecture, praised the beauty of Catholic cathedrals and condemned immoralities against the 9th and 10th commandments in the construction business. And the university didn't allow me to pass. Your website impressed and converted me about half a year ago. I decide to follow the Holy Rule of St. Benedict as much as possible. I avoid eating delicious food, try my best not to talk to anyone about worldly things or provoke laughter. In addition to 15 decades of Rosary, I pray the traditional Breviary in full everyday, sometimes I need to skip classes to keep the time. I detest the wild lifestyle of my roommates, they deprive me much sleep by partying and give me a hard time getting up for Marins, Lauds and Prime. They hate my seriousness and often (may well be purposely) create noise to wake me up. Once they even tuned the temperature of the air conditioner in my room from 25 degrees to 18 degrees (the control panel is in the public area) to freeze me and they admitted they did it for just that purpose.

Du…

MHFM: It’s interesting to hear about your travails. Keep battling. In addition to your other prayers, we recommend 3 Hail Marys for knowing and fulfilling God’s will. If you could avoid living with college pagans and somehow live by yourself, that’s absolutely what you should do.

Catholic Culture

For those who don’t know, St. John Vianney is the patron saint of parish priests.

When just four years old, St. John Vianney “had a rosary which he greatly prized. Gothon [his sister], who was eighteen months younger, took a fancy to her brother’s beads, and, of course, wished to get possession of them. It came to a scene between brother and sister; there was screaming, stamping of feet, and even a preliminary skirmish, when suddenly, full of grief, the poor child ran to his mother. Gently, but firmly, she bade him to give the beads to Gothon: ‘Yes, my darling, give them to her for love of the good God.’ Jean-Marie, though bathed in tears, immediately surrendered his precious rosary. For a child of four this was surely no mean sacrifice! Instead of petting and fondling the child with a view to drying his tears, his mother gave him a small wooden statue of our Lady. The rude image had long stood on the mantelpiece of the kitchen chimney, and the little one had often wished to possess it. At last it was his… ‘Oh! How I loved that statue,’ he said seventy years later.” (Abbé Francis Trocu, The Curé D’Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, pp. 7-8)

If only the youths of today had as their “problem” a desire to fight over their favorite rosary... This story is a pleasant reminder of how great Catholic culture is (where the Faith is at the center of life from one’s earliest years) and how sad it is that it has vanished.

False Baptismal Certificates

Is it lawful for a bishop to issue false baptismal certificates to aid Jews to escape persecution during WWII?

About John XXIII: "As apostolic delegate in Turkey and Greece after 1935, he engaged peaceably with the worlds of Orthodoxy and Islam," said Tenembaum, who is also the founder of the Angelo Roncalli International Committee. "When World War II erupted, he risked his position and security to provide thousands of Turkish transit visas, 'temporary' baptismal and immigration certificates, authorizing Hungarian Jews persecuted by the Nazis to escape to Palestine.” (Zenit)

MHFM: No, it wouldn’t be lawful. It’s tantamount to asserting that one has the true faith when one doesn’t. It’s tantamount to asserting that one worships the true God when one rejects Him. It would definitely not be lawful to issue false baptismal certificates to Jews.

Salvation book

…do you have the new :"Out side the chruch there is no salvation" book? I have access to a computer in the library. But I need a cd or dvd to really be able to take the time to reflect on all the material in your offerings. I stop and start the cd's . It is hard to do that in a noisy library.

Anthony

MHFM: The second edition of the book should be available in about three weeks.

Radio Program

We really appreciate the internet broadcast. I have re-listened to the achived ones several times.

Would appreciate more programs - it's an important aspect to our understanding and ability to talk with novus ordo individuals.

Thanks,

Gary

MHFM: Our radio program is on a temporary hiatus because we are in the process of completing a major book project. When that is completed (which will hopefully be soon), we will resume our radio program. We will continue to add updates to our website in the meantime.

A Baysider responds

Hell-bent world! Pray and spread good news, stop judging! You like all the evil that is going on. Stop countering bayside. Pray! Pray for Truth! I don't fear you!

Mari…

MHFM: You don’t care about what the Church teaches, and that’s why you are blinded to the clear heresies in the Bayside Message – which prove it to be a fraud that was concocted by the Devil to cleverly keep people inside the Counter Church and at the New Mass. You are obstinate, and take the bait of the Devil – hook, line and sinker. You are truly a Baysider; unfortunately you are not a Catholic. You are among those about whom it was written that God allowed them to be deceived because they receive not the love of the truth:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."

The False Apparitions at Bayside, New York [link]

This article exposes the lengths to which the Devil has been allowed to go to deceive people about the Vatican II apostasy, the Vatican II antipopes and the New Mass

SSPV supporter responds

According to you folks at Holy Family Monastery.The only ones that are not heretics, ARE YOU.? All otherTraditionalCatholics are going to hell ! You attack the SSPV because they believe Sanctifying Grace Saves, and if YOU don't believe SanctyfyingGrace saves, that makes you folks at HFM, heretics.

Andy A.

PA.

MHFM: Sorry, but that’s a lie. We never said that “all other Traditional Catholics are going to Hell.” When we have to denounce an obstinate heretic (which happens to be very often during these days of the Great Apostasy), we corroborate the accusation with evidence. We challenge anyone to write in and identify someone we have denounced who doesn’t deserve it.

In the case of the SSPV, we rightly denounce them because they believe that non-Catholics (Buddhists, Jews, etc.) can be saved without the Catholic Faith.

The Society of St. Pius V, The Roman Catholic, Winter, 2005, p. 54: “Q. Do Catholics believe that non-Catholics cannot be saved. A. No.”

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.”

Could anything be more clear? The SSPV rejects the defined dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost. They try to justify this and distract people from it by talking endlessly about Fr. Feeney’s error on Justification, with which we don’t even agree, by the way. That’s what Bishop Kelly does, and it was also recently done by Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV. It’s so slanted dishonest that it cries out to Heaven. In talking almost endlessly about this, they effectively brainwash and distract their people. They go on and on about one passage from Fr. Feeney, like a Protestant or a “Jehovah’s Witness” who keeps bringing up the same “papal scandal” again and again because he has such a paucity of evidence for his position. The SSPV priests surely don’t like don’t like to address their heresy, according to which Buddhists and Jews can be saved.

This group?

Brothers,

Is the Purgatorian Archconfraternity on Golgotha Monastery Island, Papa Stronsay, Orkney, United Kingdom, an acceptable place to send money to have Masses said for the souls in purgatory? I know that the Tridentine Mass, presided over by a valid priest, is necessary along with a sedevacantist aknowledgment of the Church's current plight; but finding suitable priests to say Masses for the dead is next to impossible in this day and time. Please, steer me in the right direction. May God bless you abundantly for the soul-saving information you impart on a daily basis.

In deepest gratitude,
Craig Sexton

MHFM: Unfortunately, one couldn’t send money for Masses there because they are affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, which holds that souls can be saved in false religions and that Antipope Benedict XVI is the pope.

Constance on popes

Brothers,

The Church Teaches Documents of the Church in English Translation by Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's Kansas, page 76 number 158

"8. If the pope be a reprobate and an evil man, and, consequently, a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful given to him
by anyone, except perhaps by the state."

What does this mean? Is this saying that the pope can be a reprobate and a member of the devil and still have power over the faithful, ie
still pope? Thanks for your response and the work you are doing.

Bill

MHFM: Thanks for the question. This is from the errors condemned by the Council of Constance. You can find it, and other propositions condemned by Constance, in Denzinger. For instance, this is a similar error from John Hus which was also condemned:

Errors of John Hus, Condemned by the Council of Constance: “#20. If the Pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle, he is of the Devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."[45] – Condemned

Some object that this proves that heretics can be popes. They are very wrong. The Council of Constance didn’t condemn the idea that a heretic would cease to be the pope at all. This is a serious misunderstanding of this proposition. As we see clearly above, the Council condemned something significantly different. It condemned the proposition that a wicked man would cease to be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it. The proposition from the heretic Hus rightly asserts that one who is not a member of the Church cannot be the head of the Church, but it falls into trouble by stating that the pope ceases to be a member if he is “wicked.”

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

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”[46]

A merely wicked pope doesn’t cease to be pope, but a heretic or schismatic does. This is because heresy and schism and apostasy separate one from the Church, while other sins (no matter how grave or wicked they are) do not. Thus, we can see clearly that the proposition is condemning the idea that wickedness separates one from the Church. It is not condemning the truth that a heretic ceases to be the pope. In fact, many of the other propositions from John Hus which were condemned by the Council of Constance repeat the false idea expressed above in different ways: that the wicked are not part of the Church. It’s undeniable that heretics cease to be popes.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

By the way, in the other debate on sedevacantism which took place, this easily refuted argument from the above errors condemned by Constance was brought up by the non-sedevacantist. If he was aware of what this proposition really taught and had seen its refutation in our material – i.e., that it mentions a “wicked pope” and not a heretical pope – then it was a profoundly dishonest move to bring it up – since it doesn’t prove his point at all but gives the impression to those listening (most of whom are unfamiliar with the issue) that it does prove his point. (He wouldn’t have gotten away with it in a debate with us.) If he wasn’t familiar with the refutation of it, it simply shows how weak his case is. This is one of those things which provides shock effect when presented in a debate or a discussion because many don’t know how to respond; but, in reality, it doesn’t prove the point at all, as we see above. Unfortunately, the sedevacantist who was debating the non-sedevacantist didn’t say a word to refute this argument, just like he cite one heresy in Vatican II, nor one act of false ecumenism.

Creation question

Dear MHFM,

Just to let you know I am thoroughly enjoying your archived videos and audios… Also, is there a written version of your presentation on miracles, Creation, etc? There is so much material in the audio version that I can't take it in. I'd like to read up on some of the claims you present.

Thank you,
D. Oderberg

MHFM: What we recommend for that is the book we sell: In the Beginning by Dr. Walt Brown. See our online store. It’s the best book refuting evolution and proving the Biblical Flood.

On the grave situation

Dear Brothers

I acknowledge your wait and see advice since you are more war wary with this Roman (or is that now Roaming) Hierarchy than we are. The shocking thing is that globally, if there are no more valid priests ordained and no Bishops to ordain them, then it doesn't really matter how many indults he issues. The dire results will be the same. It will all be just a sham without a faculty to validly ordain priests, will it not? I speculate they will insist on the latest rites for ordination as a compromise to appease the naysayers.

And the spiritual starvation for millions of Catholic souls if the Sacraments under the pre Vatican 2 rubrics are not maintained. Imagine the confusion trying to sort out those ordained before and after the abandonment dates of the sixties and by whom.

It may hasten the formation on enclaves where certainty of validity and continuity of dogmas held will be the only sane modes of perserverance. At least Tradition might be left alone to continue the Faith in such refuges. Somehow I suspect we won't hear the end of it so lightly. My wondering how long can I last without the sacraments is akin to seeing how long I can go without taking water. If it means we will be forced to become Saints, then thats the real challenge each one of us will have to take up seriouslyand our consolation. Our one hope, is in our Blessed Mother that she will find a way to nourish us in this desert we are all being quietly herded towards.

Finally, wouldn't it be ironic (and perhaps deserved) that this generation wanders 40 years in such a state, till He comes.

In Christo

Michael

MHFM: Yes, the situation is very grave. It’s exactly what Our Lord said when He asked if He would find any faith on Earth (Luke 18:8). We think that’s why Our Lord also said: “… behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt. 28:20). Perhaps He added the word “even” because, at the end, it will seem like He is no longer with the Church, even though He is.

Comment on magazine

I just finished reading the references to the Apocalypse in issue #4. It all fits and makes perfect sense. And to think that John 23 removed the prayer to St. Michael and those things that would make the devil ineffective to him and their plan... I knew about this yet I still couldn't put it all together. Just ONE of these hundreds of changes and statements and outrages should be enough for us to see the truth. Many left because they mistakenly believed that this was the true Church so they lost their faith. Others saw it for what it is and left. Still others had to wait till they couldn't take any more and then they believed…

Debate comment

Dear Brothers,

I listened to the debate and learned a few things, thank you. I wonder why you chose to debate William Golle? He sounded much like Rush L., a big wind bag and not saying anything. You all did an outstanding job of the debate. He wants to debate again on specific points you make and to prove he can disprove your points ... don't waste your time. The Modernist will sound like a traditional Catholic in one breath and turn his head and sound like a heretic in their next breath ... Saint Pius X said the same.

May God Bless and Our Lady Perfect you all,

Gerry Keaveney

MHFM: We debated Mr. Golle because he challenged us to a debate. He said “any time, anywhere.” He was also very flexible with his schedule and easy to deal with.

By the way, going into the debate Mr. Golle was quite confident. In fact, before our debate took place and after he had listened to the other debate on sedevacantism, Mr. Golle thought that if he had debated the other person he would have “killed him.” I don’t think Mr. Golle left our debate quite as confident as he went into it.

Novus Ordo Seminary

I have the Interview George Noory (Coast To Coast) did with Brother Michael Dimond on pod cast. I have listened to it three times now. There is so much compelling information. There are things the Brother said that resonated with me. There have been things I have been noticing for a long time about my local Catholic Church, its members, and "Christians" in general. There are things that just seemed wrong with the mass. There seems to be a lack of reverence and holiness. Attitudes about what true Catholic faith is has changed. There are just so many things that haven't felt right about the current church. I just haven't been able to adequately explain what I was seeing and feeling. I January, I will be attending Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Mi. I will be studying Intro to Theology and Intro to Sacred Scripture. At this point I think my calling is for lay ministry although my discernment is ongoing. I am currently working as a hospice RN. Will I be learning true Catholic scripture at Sacred Heart Seminary?

Sincerely,

Dave Stechschulte RN

MHFM: We’re glad to hear about your interest. The answer to your question is no, you will not be learning true Catholic teaching at the Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, since it’s part of the Vatican II sect. You will be instructed in a new heretical theology, which rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, among many other Catholic teachings. You will be subjected to the invalid and Protestant new rite of Mass (the Novus Ordo). It’s imperative for your salvation that you don’t enter the Novus Ordo seminary, and that you stop attending the New Mass. The Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church. Please watch our DVDs online or obtain them, and please contact us so that we can help you out in this situation.

Update on Gerry Matatics

For those it may concern:

Gerry Matatics changes his position and sells out to those who believe in salvation for non-Catholics [link]

Strong Testimonial

At the risk of inflating your pride (I think you can handle it OK), I want to congratulate, encourage, and most of all thank you for the incredible service you provide. I have to say that I have never seen or heard anyone on any topic who had the totally mastery of his subject as do you guys.

You have really changed my life, and I consider it an incredible grace that I was introduced to your information. Though a life long Catholic, long bemused by the apparent contradictions within what I understood to be the “church”, I never would have figured it out because my 12 years of “Catholic” education gave me no foundation in the doctrines and history of the Church. Seeing your material was like flicking on a switch in my head and I accepted it almost immediately. Suddenly everything made sense, not just within the Church, but the whole, silly, political and cultural world.

I went to confession (after searching out valid priests) for the first time in 20 years. I began saying the Rosary and was able to easily walk away from sinful habits and ways of thought that were decades old. When I say easily I mean really SIMPLE. I still find it astonishing. I introduce your material to as many people as I can, especially Novus Ordo priests. I still don’t have a convert, the “priests” are especially obstinate, but I think I may be on the verge of my first one.

My wife thinks I’m nuts, but my children (4 older teenagers) seem a little more receptive. My “conservative” father, head like a brick. But I am hopeful.

Thanks again. Know that what you are doing matters and you do have your victories.

Bill Mulligan

To go or not to go?

Dear Sirs,

I found your website today, quite by accident and have found it fascinating. Would it be better for me to not go to mass at all this Sunday than to go to a Novus Ordo mass?... In any case I admire your bravery and the courage you have in defending the faith. Thank you very
kindly.

John

MHFM: John, you absolutely cannot go to the New Mass for any reason, since it's not a valid Mass. Our DVD and the articles on our website provide all the evidence for this.

Can 5 and ex cathedra

My doubt resides on this, ex cathedra . A Council is a ex cathedra act of Pope? I m not asking about infalibility but only if it is ex cathedra or other solemn act of Extraordinary Magisterium of Pope or both is the same thing…

Alexandre de Oliveira

from Brasil, São Paulo

MHFM: The canon from the Council of Trent is definitely ex cathedra (from the Chair of St. Peter), and therefore a solemn act of the Magisterium. Any canon promulgated by a pope, which anathematizes all those who deny its teaching on faith, in itself fulfills the three requirements for infallibility. They are: 1) the pope must speak as head of the Church in virtue of his supreme authority, and 2) on a point of faith or morals and 3) to be believed by the universal Church. When a pope says that: 1) anyone who denies this teaching on 2) a point of Faith is 3) expelled from the Church, that fulfills the three requirements. It fulfills: 1) speaking in an authoritative capacity as head of the Church, and 2) speaking on a point of faith or morals, and 3) speaking to be believed by all Christians.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when [1] carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority [2] he explains a doctrine of faith or morals [3] to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.” (Denz. 1839)

That the canons of Trent are dogmatic ex cathedra pronouncements is proven in the following condemned proposition:

Error # 70, condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864: “The canons of the Council of Trent which impose the censure of anathema on those who have the boldness to deny to the Church the power of introducing diriment impediments, are either not dogmatic, or are to be understood in accordance with this borrowed power.” – Condemned (Denz. 1770)

CDs and roommates

A topic that I need Catholic information on in order to make decisions in my life has to do with economical transacting with the world at large to make money, to make a living, and to perhaps begin a family. My primary goal is to be with God when I die; yet, when I walk down a street I observe action and words that tell me that most people deny God's Catholic Church. Padre Pio says flee from temptation to save one's soul.

Some simple economic situations that I deal with include: Finding and living with roommates: for reasons of money I've had and still have to live with house mates. I can't say I ever lived with a Catholic house mate. I briefly lived with some Opes Dei individuals once. My concern is that I'm subjecting myself to non- Catholic beliefs. I guess one's Catholic faith will pull one through these situations. I'm I Catholic to sell something anti- Catholic to a non Catholic, example: Someplace I have probably 5 cds of rock and roll music. Considering the small business opportunity of selling these on ebay. Must I destroy this music or may I sell it to an anonymous non- Catholic. After putting this thought into words I say I need to destroy these cds. The flip of selling is buying, example … I generally feel alone in this world and even from my family. I only know through the Internet that the true Catholic faith is kept by others. I've pursued the idea of Catholic unity by researching on the web. It was shock of reality to find out there is a number of proclaimed popes in the world. I suppose a true pope would be able to answer the questions I have or significantly change the landscape so my questions don't exist..

Rob Urbasic
Denver, Colorado

MHFM: Rob, if you can avoid heretical and non-Catholic roommates, then obviously that’s the thing to do. You should make every effort to get out of that situation; but if you’re stuck and simply cannot sustain a place on your own then you have to do the best in your situation. Regarding the CDs, you should just destroy them.

Fighting for the Faith in AR

I stopped going to the New (World) Order Mass at the end of August this year. There are just 3 churches in this state that have the Tridentine Mass and I am trying to verify the validity of one priests’ ordination before I attend a valid Mass. I have the misfortune of being a Catholic who has probably never received a valid Eucharist. I converted to Catholicism in 1997. Most of my confessions are probably invalid as well… I am in an interesting position to view the continual deterioration of the faith. I am surrounded by cafeteria-Catholics, indifferentism, and a general apathy. The indoctrination of the last 45 years of the V-II church is astounding. It's sad that people can say it's fine top accept Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception and the Eucharist but in the same breath they cannot accept teaching on heretics, baptism, divorce, etc. They take what they want and discard the rest…

When I had friend over 10/16 we watched the DVD, "Why John Paul II cannot be Pope." After 20 minutes I stopped the player and we started a discussion. Bro. Michael was labeled a potential freemason, as it was put forth, and that your "method" of teaching is of a "freemasonic nature" and that you seem to be "driving people away from the church." Unfortunately, I did not have the presence of mind to mention that for a freemason to ask people to say the rosary 3 times a day, or recommend the reading of St. Louis de Montfert or St. Alphonsus, would, at the very least, be a conflict of interest. Congratulations Bro, Michael, “freemason!” I have since removed myself from the company of such folk who say these things. I know what you write about Church teaching is true. Ours is a disciplined faith, hard as that may be. But I completely understand and I am cognizent that Jesus was not ambiguous, wishy-washy or watered-down. My faith is almost the size of a mustard seed, thanks to your ministry, as I now more clearly understand the true Catholic Church and what is expected of a true Christian.

I will continue to support your monastery and ministry to the best of my ability. I have not yet given up on my family and friends, although, I will have to change tactics. I will pray for your health, for your continued endeavor and research, and for your continued heralding of the truth about the Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

Howard Shaffer

Hot Springs Village, AR.

MHFM: It’s ashame that your friend didn’t stick around for the rest of the DVD. The Why John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope DVD, especially after about the 15 to 20 minute mark, is quite devastating. Anyone who watches it would be quite convicted; for it covers in brutal visual detail the worst of John Paul II’s undeniable apostasy with the different false religions and heretical sects.

It’s great to hear about your interest; it’s sad to hear about your family and friends’ lack of it.

Cemetery

Dear Brother;

Please don't think I'm stupid but which day is it we, say go to the cemetary and pray, it's all souls day right?And is this permissable for I know there is non christians, novus ordo and maybe a mason or two buried there.

thanks

stuart ingraham

MHFM: All Souls Day (Nov. 2) is dedicated to the souls in Purgatory, but one may go to the cemetery any day. In fact, going to the cemetery and seeing tombstone after tombstone – and thinking about how all those people lived and are now dead and (for the most part) completely forgotten – can be extremely powerful and awakening about what really matters (i.e. saving one’s soul) and how quickly this earthly life vanishes.

Likewise, reading books on the four last things (death, judgment, Heaven and Hell) serves a similar purpose. One could also watch our video Death and the Journey Into Hell for something very important in this regard. But when you go to the cemetery, you could only pray for the souls of the faithfully departed (i.e. those who die as Catholics presumably in the state of grace). In other words, one could only pray for the deceased who lived and died demonstrating fidelity to the true Catholic Faith of all times, not modernist or liberal “Catholics,” nor those who die clearly in a state of sin or estrangement from the practice of the Faith.

Halloween

MHFM: Halloween was first celebrated by the Druids hundreds of years ago. These people were very superstitious and believed that witches, demons and spirits of the dead roamed about on the night of October 31^st. Because the Druids were so afraid of these forces of evil, they disguised themselves as evil spirits to confuse the real evil spirits. They also set out food offerings to the spirits. This is where the term “trick or treat” comes from. The Druids “tricked” or “treated” the evil spirits.

Obviously, no Catholic should participate in any way in this demonic festival.

Halloween is also the day before All Saints Day (Nov. 1), of course. All Saints Day is when all the saints are honored – the day when all the saints come out, if you will. So it makes sense that the devils would plan a festival for all the creatures of Hell to come out the day before all the saints come out. It’s also not just a coincidence, in our view, that Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on Oct. 31, 1517 (Halloween). His action, which unleashed a torrent of evil, occurred on the day when all the devils come out – the devils which his revolution against the Church unleashed all over the world.

Montini (Paul VI) a homo?

Dear Rev. Brothers

Why is it that all Traditionalist websites sove under the carpet that Montini [ Antipope Paul VI ] was a homosexual? How is it that he was elected pope, by the then so-called traditional minded cardinals when his homosexuality was public knowledge? What sort of cardinals were these?

God struck down Sodom and Gommorah for this vice, one of the sins that cry out for God's vengeance. Yet, a practitioner of this vice was elected in 1963 by the whole college of cardinals to head the Catholic Church !. Why the cover up? How can anyone dare to say that the Holy Ghost inspired this perverted conclave?

You have applied your mind to the Sister Lucy question. Now please do likewise concerning Montini. Look at the legacy this man - the " spiritual father " (!) of Wojtyla - has left.

S. Francis

MHFM: We haven’t seen proof that Montini (Antipope Paul VI) was a homosexual. We have proven that he was a public heretic. We stick to what we can prove.

Paul VI, Address to Dalai Lama, Sept. 30, 1973: “We are happy to welcome Your Holiness today… You come to us from Asia, the cradle of ancient religions and human traditions which are rightly held in deep veneration.”[47]

Debate stats

MHFM: The debate has been available online for less than a week; so far there have been over a thousand downloads of it.

What about this Bishop?

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter Dimond,

I read in the section of your website "Our Monastery" that the Most Holy Family Monastery had its roots in New Jersey. I was wondering if you know of any valid priests celebrating the Traditional Latin Rite mass here. I have been to Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Pequannock, which is very far from where we live now, and to Mater Ecclesiae, until I learned from your website that, due to when he was ordained, Fr. Pasley was not a valid priest. I'm guessing an independent would probably be the best way to go, anyway. I saw a listing on the internet for a St. Mary the Virgin Chapel in Paulsboro. Their priest is Bp. John Hesson, OSB and I thought it was interesting that he came from St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA - the same Benedictine community as your founder Bro. Joseph Natale, OSB. Do you know Bp. Hesson? He was ordained in May 1967, so he would be valid. I took a really quick scan of his website and it appears he is in line with the doctrine that Outside the Church there is no salvation.

I have been going to a Byzantine mass, but I really miss the Latin Rite.

Thank you for helping to save souls,

Maria Nicoletti

MHFM: Maria, unfortunately Bishop Hesson holds the same heresy as Bishop McKenna and so many other priests: that souls can be saved in false religions. One of us spoke with him over the telephone about the issue. When he was asked about no salvation outside the Church, he responded that "moral theology" teaches that non-Catholics can be saved. He also made it clear that one would not be able to receive the sacraments from him if one believed that only those who die as Catholics can be saved. Since this is his position (i.e. an imposingly heretical one), he should be avoided.

Comment on Debate

Dear Bros. Dimond,

I waited till now to listen to the debate because three hours is a long time and I wanted to hear all of it.

The poor man lost hands down. He never answered anything, just kept repeating the same thing over and over as if it was a great trump for anything that came his way. I noticed a couple of things and one was that the people who believe in Baptism of Desire seem to have little faith in God. He cannot save someone from death or bring them what is needed before death if they have a good heart, so they must hope that the desire will work, or even if they don't believe anything at all they can be a good person and saved through the church. But this God who is Almighty and All Powerful cannot point out a man who is to be pope and make it known to all Catholics and non-catholics as well? He cannot step in and fix this crisis in a manner that is of HIs own choosing? He came down and gave Moses the Ten Commandments, gave him instructions in detail on how He was to be worshiped right down to the design on the curtain and the bells and fringe on the priests robes, but He cannot point out a pope. He came to Noah and told him how to build an Ark and what to put inside but He is unable or unwilling to do the same for us in some manner. He could send His Son down to be true God and true man to die for us but he cannot give us a pope?

The next thing I noticed that upset me was the lack of Faith in God a second time. Just who was Jesus anyway? To say the Muslims worship the true God of Abraham not Jesus, is well, strange. I do seem to remember Jesus saying, " Before Abraham was I AM." and it got Him nailed to a cross for sure. However, since the Muslims worship a single deity that would mean that if Abrahams God was their God the Trinity could not have formed before the Birth of Jesus Christ. He makes more heresy to explain heresy away! And Jesus lied by saying before Abraham was I AM since He could not have been if there was no Trinity! I sure hope there is not going to be a debate on the top four or five quotes so he can prove there is no heresy in them. If he can do no better than he did with the quote the Muslims worship the same God as Catholics he has not got a hope.

Thank you a little late for the wonderful book on Padre Pio and I think putting four programs on one CD is a great idea!

Mary Ann Davis

Council of Braga and catechumens

Dear Brother,

We have had some correspondence with Fr Laisney. … in a footnote he states ..."Previous canons of the Council of Braga are irrelevant, because they were for very different circumstances: indeed, at this time, there were some "permanent catechumens" who were waiting until the end of their life for their Baptism: now such certainly do not have Baptism of Desire, and therefore the Council of Braga was right in refusing them ecclesiastical burial…Is this canon of the Council of Braga referring only to these "permanent catechumens" as Fr Laisney says? I dont believe it is, but I would like to prove to him that he is wrong. Could you please explain to me how this Canon from the Council of Braga is referring to all catechumens. Thank you for all your work to inform people of the truth and God Bless your effort.

Phil and Bryanne Weber

MHFM: The Council of Braga, expressing the tradition of the entire early Church, forbade ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without baptism. No qualification is made; it’s quite self-explanatory.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”

For someone to attempt to deny the clear meaning of this by ridiculously asserting without any proof at all that: “oh… well… that only referred to permanent catechumens…” is outrageously dishonest. It’s to be a liar, which is exactly what Fr. Francois Laisney of the SSPX is. Remember, this is the same priest who said in his book that the Council of Florence “mentions” baptism of desire!

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire.”

This is a complete lie, of course; and Fr. Laisney knows it. We don’t see how someone could write a lie like this (one of the worst lies we’ve seen in any book), and at the same time present himself as a teacher of Catholic truth, without being possessed by the Devil.

Contra B.O.D.

Dear Dimond Brothers :

I would like to make a point against the false doctrine of baptism of desire which I think its advocates would have trouble to refute.

If God were saving unbaptized adults who are ignorant of the faith through so called "desire" then wouldn't it be quite unjust for God not to save unbaptized infants, who are the most ignorant and innocent human beings and who are incapable of desiring baptism? Almost all B.O.D. advocates hold that unbaptized infants are not saved but go to Limbo. So it doesn't seem logical that they hold that unbaptized adults could be saved.

William

Breviary argument boomerangs back to refute baptism of desire/blood advocates

Howard --

Did you write to the Dimonds and ask them about the Lawgiver being superior to His Law argument for salvation by desire and blood ?

If they were not considering it, they should put it into their 2nd edition, also the infallible breviary argument.

If not, why are they avoiding these two ?

MHFM: First, God cannot reveal to His Church that which would be false – so the argument about Him being superior to His Law is irrelevant. He doesn’t reveal anything that doesn’t hold true.

Second, regarding the Breviary and the baptism of desire/blood advocates who cite the Breviary’s reference to St. Emerentiana as a “catechumen,” we’ve pointed out that the recently baptized person often continued instruction and was sometimes still referred to as a “catechumen.” That’s why the Council of Braga in 572 makes reference to “catechumens who have died without baptism” in forbidding them ecclesiatical burial. The Breviary nowhere says that one can be saved without Baptism.

But there is a devastating refutation of baptism of desire/blood advocates who make reference to the Roman Breviary. The argument of baptism of desire/blood advocates from the Roman Breviary actually boomerangs back and knocks them out. This point was made in the 1^st edition of the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, but it is made much more forcefully in the second edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, which should be available in about 5 weeks.

Here is what the Roman Breviary has to say about the teaching of the great St. Gregory Nazianz, who clearly rejected baptism of desire. A reading for the feast of St. Gregory Nazianz (May 9) in the Roman Breviary states:

This rather significant fact totally refutes baptism of desire/blood advocates who argue that the teaching of the Breviary proves that men can be saved without Baptism (which we already saw is not true). St. Gregory Nazianz clearly rejected baptism of desire (see below), and the Breviary says here that there is nothing in his writings which is not conformable to the Catholic religion or which one could call into question!

St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…

Therefore, if one holds the teaching of the Breviary to be infallible, then he would have to reject baptism of desire. As baptism of desire advocate J.D. put it:

J.D., Sept. 2, 2006: “And of course theologians consider that it is impossible that there should be theological error in the Breviary…”

It looks like this baptism of desire advocate will have to reject baptism of desire or revise his arguments (hopefully the former). It’s interesting how God puts the refutation of these objections right before us. To refute the Breviary objection, we need only consult what the Breviary says about the doctor above who clearly rejected baptism of desire! To refute the false claim that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent teaches baptism of desire, we need only consult the rest of the sentence which the baptism of desire advocates leave out, namely, “as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

On another matter, a person who had claimed to defend the salvation dogma has now defected to stand with the heretics. We will probably have some comments about this soon.

Some early reaction to the debate

Congratulations. Slam dunk…

Awesome. This was a fight between Rocky Marciano (the Bros. dimond) vs. Twigy (Mr. Golle)

I just want to say that he was not prepared for the onslaught of information. Even if he was, he could not respond nor defend the indefensible. I do not believe that he understood that your quotations from the Vatican II antipopes were "their explanations" of the Vatican II heresy. Sad indeed.

If he repeated that our position was not true because you, the Bros Dimond, could not tell us who and when the next pope were to be chosen, I was going to scream. He, even though he believes in the V2 popes, cannot tell us who or when the next pope will be chosen. Afterall, you, I, nor he is a prophet. So, stop with the assertion of predicting the future. Great job in staying on task.

Big victory…

Yours in Christ,

Bill Boyd

Baldwinsville, NY

You did an EXCELLENT job in this debate on Sedevacantism because you presented facts to defend your position. Mr. Gallo presented opinion. God is not about opinion, only Truth based upon Facts! Also, he was like a broken record about "when will we have a Pope if the Chair of St. Peter has been empty for 50 years?" I guess Mr. Gallo didn't hear you quote St. Anthanasius who said that the Catholic Church is found where there is a valid priest and valid Sacraments, where there is but a handful of faithful Catholics. And it is most obvious he does not know the history of how Popes in the past have been elected. But he thinks like most NO Catholics I know. The problem is that if they are in communion with the post-Vat. II "Popes," then they cannot be in communion with St. Peter and his valid successors. They do not teach the same Faith, which is obvious if one but do a comparison and contrast of the Roman Church with the post Conciliar Church. My third graders know how to use a Venn Diagram to compare and contrast. Perhaps everyone who wants to be Roman Catholic would benefit by using this stategy. Salvation is at stake!...

fandm

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

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

A job well done. There were so many areas in this debate that Mr. Golle proved himself is not even be Catholic. People who believe as he does, are in essence atheists, as evidenced by his statement regarding the Muslims praying, "not necessarily to Jesus, but the God of the old testament". Unbelievable!!!!

Paul and Theresa Smith

Dear Brothers,

The Lord was truly with you last nite during the sedevacantism debate. You were both well prepared and presented the case flawlessly. I tuned in to see if there were any NEW arguements coming from the anti sedevacantist camp. As usual, it was the same arguement.... "IT JUST CAN'T BE SO... BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSION". You present the facts that can't be denied by anyone with an ounce of good will at seeking what is true and correct and the opponent dismisses ALL the evidence and facts simply because acceptance of them means a conclusion that he does not wish to arrive at or have answers for. This is as bad as protestants who REFUSE to read anything written by Catholics in apologetics which may lead to their conversion simply because "Catholics CAN'T be correct"..

Sincerely,

Edward

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

Well done on your debate with Mr. Golle!... You both did a great job in showing that even people
who actively support abortion, such as John Kerry, can be in good standing in the Vatican II church; so much
for Truth on that issue...Mr. Golle denies that such actions such as kissing the koran, praying at the Wailing Wall, kneeling before a schismatic patriarch, praising Protestants such as Martin Luther, or praying with heretics can infer support for these false religions! These are acts of apostasy! However, I would like to point out that Judas himself betrayed Jesus with a KISS! This is why Jesus warned us of Wolves in Sheep's clothing. These guys at the very top of Mr. Golle's hierarchy know EXACTLY what they are doing! They want all these people to remain where they are so they have NO CHANCE
at salvation…

Bridget Burrows

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

Dear Bros.Michael and Peter,

Listened to the debate,all I can say is "Outstanding." May Jesus and Mary continue to protect you,
you have done so much for so many.

Paula

----------

DEAR BROTHER PETER AND BROTHER MICHAEL,

Excellent debate! A friend who wanted to listen was unable, and fortunately it's already on your web site!

Nancy Battle

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

Dear Bros:

That was a good debate you made Mr. Golle; you maintained your coolness. I'm treasuring the mp3. I wrote to you sometime back but feel like writing to you again. Not only Mr. Golle but most Vatican II sect supporters do not understand that sedevacantists are not self-righteous Catholics on the look out for a pope who would fit in to their personal style and ideals of the Church. In fact, it's difficult for them to live without looking up to a living pope as Christ's vicar on earth as much as the Novus Ordos need to look up to their "popes." But more difficult for them is to hold an apostate as their Holy Father…

Dennis Gabil

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

We would agree that the Dimonds utterly obliterated the position of their opponent tonight…

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

Dear Brothers,

I am getting grief, because my friends don't think William Golle has a sufficient Degree to be a reliable opponent. Would you please post his credentials that make him a worthy debater.

Thank you,
Carol

MHFM: We assume that means that even your non-sedevacantist friends can see who won the debate. As we posted, Mr. Golle is a writer for the Catholic Star Herald with a degree in Systematic Theology from a “Catholic” University who is on his way to his Masters Degree. He studies sedevacantism, and is familiar with our arguments. It wouldn’t have mattered who was debating on the other side or answering the questions, the result would have been the same. The questions are unanswerable; the truth is irrefutable. We were so glad that we finally got a chance to debate one of these individuals. We’ve been in so many conversations where they could lie about, evade or ignore the true points being presented, but in a debate they cannot escape the facts.

Probably on our next radio program we will also have some comments about the pathetically weak case which was presented by another supposed sedevacantist who recently took part in a debate.

What about this priest?

Dear Brothers,

As you probably know, Fr. Francis LeBlanc of Our Lady of the Sun International Shrine died on September 28, and we

now have a new pastor, Fr. Paul Andrade who was ordained by Bishop Dolan at a Cistercian seminary in Warren, Michigan

about eleven years ago. From his comments so far, we know he is a sedevacantist. Do you know if priests of this Order hold to any heresies, as do those of the SSPX, CMRI, etc. If you answer this in your web commentaries, please use a pseudonym for my name,

…

Sincerely yours,

[name withheld]

MHFM: Thank you for your question. We don’t know what Fr. Andrade personally holds, but he almost certainly denies the salvation dogma (although we hope we’re wrong). From what we’ve been told by an individual who attended his chapel in Nevada and conversed with him, Andrade was affiliated with Bishop McKenna (who rejects the salvation dogma and holds that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace). You should not support him at all until he manifests that he doesn’t accept baptism of desire under any form (although that’s extremly unlikely) and indicates that he is not affiliated with any priests who deny the dogma. Andrade also might have some affiliation with Bishop Dolan or Bishop Sanborn (who all deny the dogma, and who are all basically part of the same crowd).

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”

By the way, Bishop Sanborn’s colleague, Fr. Anthony Cekada, believes similarly and even said that the Catholic dogma on salvation doesn’t exclude the idea that non-Catholic “individuals” are saved, but only that their sects are means of salvation. (Closing statement in a debate in The Remnant, 2002.) That is not true, of course; it is a heretical rejection of the dogma, since the dogma declares that all individuals who die without the Catholic Faith are lost, not simply that non-Catholic religions are not means of salvation.

Comment on SSPX reconciliation and Bendict XVI

MHFM: Just a quick thought: If Benedict XVI plans to 1) lure the SSPX fully back into the phony Vatican II sect (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon) and 2) “canonize” the gargantuan apostate John Paul II, he probably knows that he must do #1 before #2. For if he “canonizes” John Paul II first, that would be a tremendous impediment to their full union with the V-2 sect. It would basically end negotiations, in our opinion. But once he reconciles with them and brings them in they are stuck (unless they completely break ranks with the SSPX and New Church), and he can proceed with the “canonization” of Antipope John Paul II and then force them all to venerate the man who represented antichrist in the temple of God. If the SSPX does fully reconcile, don’t be surprised if the “canonization” of John Paul II follows quickly.

Death Penalty?

MHFM,

In November there will be a referendum on the ballot as to whether or not the state of Wisconsin should allow capital punishment. The local novus ordo are saying Catholics should oppose the death penalty, that it is part of the "culture of death." Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with it. For instance, if the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had been executed by the state, I do not see that as a miscarriage of justice, provided he was given the opportunity to repent and convert if he desired it. Instead he was beaten to death while in prison by another inmate, presumably while the prison guard looked the other way. I recall in Oklahoma Timothy McVeigh was rather defiant up to near the end of his life, but received the last rites and had a prequiem mass - via novus ordo. Are we to believe the justice system did wrong? I don't. (He was also cremated - do you think this is a good practice for Catholics?)

Sincerely,

John

MHFM: The Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty. That’s another novel and heretical idea of the Vatican II sect. In fact, one of the condemned errors of Martin Luther is:

Errors of Martin Luther, #33: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the spirit.” – Condemned by Pope Leo X (Denz. 773)

The Catholic Church also condemns the practice of Catholics getting cremated. The 1917 Code of Canon Law forbade Christian burial for those who requested cremation. That’s covered below in this passage from our article on Benedict XVI’s heretical book, God and the World:

BENEDICT XVI ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE VATICAN II SECT HAS ABANDONED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TRADITIONAL PROHIBITION OF CREMATION

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 436: “Q. Is it permissible to have dead bodies cremated, or is that just a heathen ritual? A… Right up to the Second Vatican Council, cremation was subject to penalties. In view of all the circumstances of the modern world, the Church has abandoned this. ”

Benedict XVI is acknowledging the radical teaching of John Paul II’s 1983 Code of Canon Law in this regard.

1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1176 § 3: “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

So, as long you claim that you are not getting cremated for the express purpose of contradicting a dogma – but rather, for instance, because you want your ashes to rest on your favorite golf course – cremation is allowed by the Vatican II sect. This is a very serious issue because the teaching of the Catholic Church, as reflected in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, forbids cremation under pain of mortal sin and further stipulates that those who requested it cannot receive Christian burial. This shows us a clear difference between the two religions.

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1203 § 1-2: “The bodies of the faithful departed shall be buried, their cremation being reprobated. 2. If anyone by any manner orders that his body be cremated, it is illicit to execute that desire; and if this was added to any contract or testament or any other act.”

1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1240 § 1-5: “Unless they gave before death a sign of repentance, the following are deprived of ecclesiastical burial: 1. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or those who notoriously gave their name to heretical sects or schismatic or Masonic sects, or other societies of this sort; 2. Excommunicates or those under interdict after a condemnatory sentence; 3. Those who killed themselves by deliberate counsel; 4. Those who died in a duel, or from wounds related thereto; 5. Those who ordered that their body be handed over for cremation; 6. Other public and manifest sinners.”

Convert from Protestantism

Brothers Dimond,

I have been reading your material online for a few weeks now and needless to say, it is startling. I am a baptized Protestant but after the last four years of studying I have determined the Catholic Church to the be the true faith. After going through most of the RCIA program at a local Novus Ordo Church I could sense something was wrong-the faith I had believed the Catholic Church to hold was absent and in its place was a mockery. In short, over the past few months I have realized the truth of the traditional Catholic faith. I still need to be formally recieved into the Catholic Church but am in a quandary as to how to go about it… I feel like I have been on a goose chase and am very concerned of the frightening possibility I could die as a non-Catholic-even though I believe whole-heartedly all that it teaches and claims for itself. I would be very grateful for any suggestions/advice you could give me. Thank you.

Brad

MHFM: We have contacted this individual.

Benedict XVI restoring Latin Mass?

Dear Brothers

Gods grace be upon you for your explanations of the Faith and continue in the good fight. We hear that the SSPX in New Zealand are hinting of an announcement in November 2006 that they have been accepted and will return to the sheepfold. Problem is, wolves are now on duty, looking for more fat ones to break their hooves, travelling to and fro. Where does that leave the rest of us who soon will have fewer alternatives for the Sacraments?

BENEDICT XVI WILL BROADEN USE OF LATIN MASS

Does this pending announcement change anything about SSPX"s status or does the announcement, to be seen and understood have no effect? The timing is close to the suspected announcement of their "deal". Since St Pope Pius V made his ex cathedra pronouncement, what effect can this have on that? Will the local ordinaries now release their Churches for the Old Mass. It will be interesting to see who disobeys this instruction.

I guess its a strategic position to begin with, we can but trust in Gods grace.

In Christo
Michael Sheehan

MHFM: If Benedict XVI does allow the Latin Mass universally that will, of course, be a calculated move on his part to lure traditionalists into the false Vatican II sect at a time when most of the priests are invalid anyway – as we’ve pointed out repeatedly. But we think that people should wait and see if it even happens. There has been a lot of talk – and nothing more – for a long time now. We think that people should put all the speculation and the sensationalism on hold until it happens, is signed and put into effect. We’ll see if what we’ve been hearing for a few years now ever happens at all. If it never happens, Benedict XVI has benefited by the rumors, for in the minds of the lax “Catholics” who don’t keep up on things, the fact that he was said to want to give the Latin Mass back provides the impression that he is traditional (even if he never follows through with the promise) – once again deceiving people, confirming them in the whore, wasting their time, neutralizing them.

People shouldn’t forget how bad this recent Heresy of the Week by Benedict XVI is. It’s as bad as John Paul II kissing the Koran. It alone would prove he is not the pope.

Regarding where to attend Mass, this is a difficult issue. Obviously one cannot ever attend the New Mass. On our website (see the Guide for the section on this question) we have posted some guidelines on our position about how a Catholic may avail himself of the sacraments that are provided by a traditionalist priest who holds a heretical position, as long as that priest is not notorious or imposing about his heresy – and as long as the Catholic doesn’t support the priest at all financially. Since there are so many different priests in the SSPX, those guidelines on our website which address this issue should be applied to your particular situation.

Comments on G.W.S article

Dear Brothers, I appreciated your comprehensive article on the Western Schism. I thought it was very well done. I had been trying to find accurate information on this topic… Keep up the great work. God bless.

Barbara

-----

In your article on Pius XII and BOD, I believe you meant to say Pope Stephen VI, not Pope Stephen VII.

Michael Bongard

MHFM: No, we meant to say Stephen VII. He is listed both ways (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 115).

-------

Br. Peter Dimond has come out with an excellent essay discussing the Great Western Schism and drawing lessons from it:

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Great_Western_Schism.html

He builds a good case that sedevacantism is not as absurd as it might at first seem. All of the cardinals of the Church went over to an Anti-Pope; an Anti-Pope ruled from Rome; the true Pope was the weakest of three claimants; most of the theologians recognized an Anti-Pope.

Pius XII and Baptism of desire?

Dear Brother Peter

I would appreciate your comment on the following quote from Pope Pius XII which appears to explicitly endorse Baptism of Desire in the last sentence of the quotation.

Gerard

MHFM: We have posted a short article which comments on this issue. It is found here: Comments on Pius XII and Baptism of desire

JP video chilling

Dear Brothers,

I have been so busy telling my friends to go see your New JPII Video that I have forgotten to Thank You for taking the time and effort to make it. It IS Chilling...so subtle. I'm left almost speachless just thinking of the magnitude of this discovery. If anyone had any doubts, this should surely nail the lid shut on those.

Carol

Like Radio Program and Article

Dear Brothers,

It was a fascinating program tonight, as usual; but much too short! Your article on the Western Schism was really interesting. It was funny how you used the term "patent aburdidity" several times as it was Christopher Ferrara's article on "Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise" which used that phrase repeatedly regarding sedevacantism and which was the impetus for my becoming a sedevacantist.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your website. You seem to be the only really sane people on the internet.

Contra NFP

Greetings,

Just a note to thank you for your article on NFP. As a single woman, I find NFP to be disgusting, obscene, and revolting. I have told married people over and over again that manual strangulation is not a superior method of homicide because it is "natural" and uses no devices like a gun. It has the same effect, and the Church Father Caesarius said that contraception is a kind of homicide because it prevents the life a person whom God willed to exist.

By the way, there was a quote by a Saint to the effect that heretics persist in their sin because they lead bad lives.

You are right that Mel Gibson sins mortally by denying the Faith publicly whilst pretending to practice it…. Given the obscene nature of his films, one isn't surprised.

Regards,

Miss Ross

Refuting the illogic of Eastern Orthodoxy

[note: someone we know recently declared his intention to become Eastern Orthodox; we pointed out to him that E. Orthodoxy, without recognizing a supreme bishop, cannot believe in a dogmatic council at all. He e-mailed us back saying that it’s no more of a problem than differentiating between true popes and antipopes. Below is part of his e-mail and our response, which brings up points which prove that Eastern Orthodoxy, the schismatic sect which rejects the Papal Primacy and the last 13 councils of the Church, is completely false and illogical.]

I appreciate your prompt response, but I am not sure that after much reflection and reading there is a sufficient answer at this point to the questions we discussed. Your comments were helpful, but I do not feel that you answered the issue of certainty as to an ecumenical council as to certainty of a valid pope. Nicea is valid because of its self-attestation to the traditional Faith which, as the Fathers often say, is in line with "the tradition of the Holy and orthodox fathers." At some point we must admit the certainty of the individual as to what is orthodox. If the individual can have certainty, then its not merely a matter of knowing which is the valid pope, since we know there have been numerous antipopes and numerous false councils. How do you know Constance was a false council when it was called? You will say because later sessions were ratified by a valid pope (Martin V). How do we know Martin V is the valid pope? Doesn't the problem just get moved back a step?

OUR QUICK REFUTATION OF EASTERN ORTHODOXY

MHFM: Regarding your first question, the answer is here:

“When the Council of Constance (reckoned in part or whole the Sixteenth General, 1414-1417)… had deposed [Antipope] John, it entered into negotiations with Gregory, who conveyed to it his willingness to abdicate provided he was allowed formally to convoke the assembled prelates and dignitaries afresh as a general council; as pope he could not recognize one called by John. This procedure was accepted, and at the 14^th solemn session, on 4 July 1415, his cardinal John Dominici read out his bull convoking the council, whereupon Carlo Malatesta [Pope Gregory XII] announced his resignation. The two college of cardinals were united, Gregory’s acts in his pontificate were ratified…”[50][i]

The valid election of Martin V followed Pope Gregory XII’s resignation and his valid convocation of Constance.

You write:>>>Nicea is valid because of its self-attestation to the traditional Faith which, as the Fathers often say, is in line with "the tradition of the Holy and orthodox fathers." At some point we must admit the certainty of the individual as to what is orthodox. If the individual can have certainty, then its not merely a matter of knowing which is the valid pope, since we know there have been numerous antipopes and numerous false councils.>>>

There is a very logical framework which enables one to distinguish true popes from antipopes, as I will explain. There is no such logical framework in Eastern Orthodoxy for distinguishing between a true council and a false council, or true dogma from heresy.

Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be a true pope, but logically an antipope. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.

I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent. (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils’ teaching.)

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome, cannot even put forward a framework by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical. As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops. Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were? What are the criteria? I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox” this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

Jay, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as you will see if you honestly and deeply think about it. In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith. I guess the fact that E. Orthodoxy doesn’t – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it’s so appealing to so many: it’s provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.

By the way, I think we agree that the post-Vatican II sect is a huge manifestation of evil at the very least, a Counter Church of the Devil. Well, the post-Vatican II sect loves Eastern Orthodoxy; that should tell you something. If E. Orthodoxy were true, the post-Vatican II antipopes would hate it. The post-Vatican II antipopes, whose mission from the Devil is to embrace all the major breaches of God’s truth in history (the pagan religions, the Islamic religion, the heretical sects and the E. Orthodox schism) reaches out to and wants to unite with E. Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) because the Devil knows that E. Orthodoxy was one of those major movements of rejection of God’s truth by which he has ensnared millions of souls.

I don’t have the time to address your other questions now; nor do I know if I want to make the time, simply because those who are not convinced by such obvious points about the illogical nature of E. Orthodoxy, as well as the clear teaching of Scripture, sadly will probably not be convinced by a thousand proofs. I would recommend that you pray the 15 decade Rosary each day – by the way, the miracle at Fatima also testifies to the Catholic Faith and she spoke there of the pope and his authority – and read the book Upon This Rock by Steve Ray (a Modernist, but who nevertheless marshals evidence from the early Church destroying E. Orthodox and Protestant lies against the Primacy).

Matthew 16:17-18-“And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the Universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

St. Irenaus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But inasmuch as it would be very tedious in a book like this to rehearse the lines of succession in every church, we will put to confusion all those who, either from waywardness or conceit or blindness or obstinacy combine together against the truth, by pointing to the tradition, derived from the Apostles, of that great and illustrious Church founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops in their succession. For with this Church, because of its more powerful leadership, every church, that is to say, the faithful from everywhere, must needs agree, and in it the tradition that springs from the Apostles has been continuously preserved by men from everywhere....”

New Video available online

MHFM: On Sept. 19, 1846, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared in La Salette, France, and foretold that:

“Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist… the Church will be in eclipse.”

We’re happy to announce that you can now watch our video, John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist: that every man is God, online for free. To watch the video, Click here and scroll down and you will see John Paul II preached the Gospel of the Antichrist… We truly hope many will watch this video, for it absolutely proves that John Paul II preached that every man is Jesus Christ right in the Vatican. It proves that John Paul II preached precisely what St. John describes in the Bible as the doctrine of Antichrist. This video proves, without any doubt, that John Paul II represented the fulfillment of Our Lady of La Salette’s prophecy, that Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist. (Note: Paul VI and Benedict XVI also represent Antichrist in the Vatican; the former because he attempted to kill Christ in the Mass, and the latter because he teaches that Jesus doesn’t have to be seen as the Messiah.) This video proves that John Paul II’s distinguishing teaching was the exact doctrine of Antichrist, the substitution of man for God.

Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God.”

We implore skeptics to take a look at the incredible evidence contained in this video, to watch the entire thing, for it truly provides proof that John Paul II was preaching the doctrine of Antichrist in the Vatican, in fulfillment of Our Lady’s prophecy at La Salette. For those who come to recognize what John Paul II was preaching deliberately and with full knowledge, it will illuminate their entire outlook on the post-Vatican II apostasy and what we’re dealing with in the post-Vatican II antipopes.

Years ago, when we originally read John Paul II’s first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, we noticed that John Paul II was subtly indicating that man is God.

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.”

He says here that Christianity and the Gospel (the religion of Jesus Christ) are actually the amazement at man – a clear antichrist substitution. He also says in this encyclical that man must attribute the Incarnation to himself in order to understand himself.

Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 10): “The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly … he must ‘appropriate’ and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself.”

However, the full impact of John Paul II’s message didn’t hit us until we read the homily quoted below from John Paul II on Christ’s dialogue with the Pharisees in John 8. Since we were familiar with the scripture that John Paul II was talking about, this was the point when it really hit us and it really clicked: we saw in its fullness exactly what John Paul II was really about.

John 8:23-“And he (Jesus) said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”

Antipope John Paul II, Homily, March 30, 1982: “Looking at himself, man discovers also – as Christ says in the dialogue with the Pharisees [John 8]– 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.” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 10, 1982, p. 6.)

When we read this, we saw clearly that John Paul II wasn’t merely a heretic filled with the evil spirit of modern humanism and a false exaltation of man, but rather that John Paul II was deliberately and clearly, with a full knowledge of what he was doing, teaching that man is Jesus Christ Himself. And then we began seeing it all over his writings, with reference to every aspect of the Faith, sometimes in bold ways and sometimes in more subtle ways.

Further, having a familiarity with the heresy of Nestorius – Nestorius was the 5^th century heretic who divided Christ by a perverse view of the Incarnation – we noticed the incredible similarity between Nestorius’s perversion of the Incarnation and John Paul II’s. We also knew that Pope Pius XI described Nestorius’s heresy as the dissolving of Jesus (quoted in the video), the very thing that St. John says is the doctrine of Antichrist (1 John 4:2-3). We then noticed that John Paul II’s teaching on the Incarnation was the very same heresy of Nestorius (the dissolving of Jesus), but John Paul II applied it to each man.

Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Ghost (# 50), May 18, 1986: “The Word became flesh.’ The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, everything that is ‘flesh’: the whole of humanity ...”

This means that the Son of God became the whole of humanity. We then noticed the incredible fact that, according to Catholic teaching, Nestorius’s doctrine of Antichrist (his dividing of Christ) brought in the worship of two Christs and the worship of man.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius… and all those who might later… adopt the same opinions as he held… They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, OFFERING WORSHIP TO TWO SONS, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, AND INTRODUCING TO BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH THE OFFENCE OF THE WORSHIP OF MAN. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one lord Jesus Christ.”

This fascinating quote describes the result of Nestorius’s heresy. Nestorius’s dissolving of Jesus resulted in the worship of man! John Paul II teaches that the Son of God became each man in the Incarnation (i.e., he was dissolved into everyone), and therefore the Gospel is the deep amazement at everyone! The next quote from John Paul II shows how he applied this in a cause and effect relationship.

Antipope John Paul II, General Audience, Jan. 25, 1984: “Christ, the Son of God, by becoming flesh, assumes the humanity of every man… At this point he becomes united with every person… In the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis I wrote that ‘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.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30, 1984, p. 3.)

Notice that, according to John Paul II, the Gospel being the amazement at man flows from his teaching that the Son of God became every man in the Incarnation, just as Nestorius’s dissolving of Jesus resulted in the worship of man. It was thus clear that John Paul II taught Nestorianism, the very doctrine of Antichrist (according to Pius XI), applied to each man; and this is why his teaching results in the worship of multiple Christs and the worship of man.

John Paul II’s teaching was a prophetic fulfillment of what Sacred Scripture pinpointed as the doctrine of Antichrist 2000 years ago. Watch the video, and see the evidence and the undeniable proof that John Paul II preached that man is the way, the truth, and the life, that man is the crucified Christ, that man is the resurrected Christ, that man is the Christ of Mt. 16:16, that man is the Christ child born on Christmas, etc., etc., etc. See for yourself what the post-Vatican II apostasy is really all about.

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.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 22, 1990, p. 6.)

Quote against Invincible Ignorance

MHFM: Below is a very interesting quote from a famous 16^th century Dominican theologian, Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., who summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the fact that those who die in ignorance of the Gospel are lost for their mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of disbelief in the Gospel (since they’ve never heard it). Here is how he explained it:

This quote will be one of the new parts to the 2^nd edition of Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

Sr. Lucy and Fuentes

Dear Brothers,

I am a longtime student of Fatima and agree with the idea of there being an impostor Sr. Lucia. Where does that leave the famous 1957 quote about the efficacy of the Rosary in our times? Although I have personally experienced the power of the Rosary, wouldn't the Sr. Lucia who uttered these words have been the fake Sr. Lucia? There are many who think the genuine Sr. Lucia died as long ago as the 1940s.

I would like to know your opinion.

Thank you!

L.M.

MHFM: Thanks for the question. This was addressed in the article on Sr. Lucy. It fits with the evidence that they made the move to remove Sr. Lucy and implant the false Sr. Lucy just after her interview with Fr. Fuentes. After that she was silenced and they began issuing false statements in her name. Here is the portion on this in the article we have The Whole Truth about the Consecration and Conversion of Russia and the Impostor Sr. Lucy.

First of all, we know that there was a conspiracy involving Sr. Lucy starting in 1959. In 1957, Sr. Lucy gave her famous interview to Fr. Augustin Fuentes, postulator of the cause of Beatification for Jacinta and Francisco. In this interview, Sr. Lucy said that she had determined that we are in the last times, and that there are punishments in store for the world. Sr. Lucy also said not to wait for the hierarchy for the call to penance. Following the interview, in 1959 the Diocese of Coimbra issued a note. This note declared that Fr. Fuentes fabricated basically all the statements attributed to Lucy in the interview not dealing specifically with Jacinta and Francisco. Included in this note was a statement allegedly from Sr. Lucy, in which she supposedly declared that Fr. Fuentes’ claims were not truthful. Here is a portion of the note:

Note from the Diocese of Coimbra, July 2, 1959, on the Fuentes interview: “Father Augustin Fuentes, postulator of the cause of beatification for the seers of Fatima… visited Sister Lucy at the Carmel of Coimbra and spoke to her exclusively about things concerning the process in question. But after returning to Mexico…this priest allowed himself to make sensational declarations of an apocalyptic, eschatological and prophetic character, which he declares that he heard from Sister Lucy’s very lips. Given the gravity of such statements, the chancery of Coimbra believed it its duty to order a rigorous investigation on the authenticity of such news… but also with regard to things reported as having been said by Sister Lucy, the Diocese of Coimbra has decided to publish these words of Sister Lucy, given in answer to questions put by one who has the right to do so.

[Sr. Lucy]: ‘Father Fuentes spoke to me in his capacity as Postulator for the causes of beatification of the servants of God, Jacinta and Francisco Marto. We spoke solely on things connected with this subject; therefore, whatever else he refers to is neither exact nor true. I am sorry about it, for I do not understand what good can be done for souls when it is not based on God, Who is the Truth. I know nothing, and could therefore say nothing, about such punishments, which are falsely attributed to me.’

The chancery of Coimbra is in a position to declare that since up to the present Sister Lucy has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima, she has said nothing new and consequently has authorized nobody, at least since February 1955, to publish anything new that might be attributed to her on the subject of Fatima.’” (WTAF, Vol. 3, pp. 550-551)

Most “traditionalists” hold the Fuentes interview to be authentic, and this statement from the Diocese of Coimbra, in which Sr. Lucy supposedly disavows much of the Fuentes interview, to be a lie. Thus, we are dealing with a conspiracy surrounding Sr. Lucy as early as 1959 – the diocese attributing and publishing false statements in Sr. Lucy’s name to disavow important warnings for the world. At the same time, it was conveniently declared that Sr. Lucy “has said everything she believed it her duty to say about Fatima”; in other words, Sr. Lucy has nothing more to say about Fatima. Frere Michel also notes that after the Fuentes interview it became increasingly difficult to get access to Sr. Lucy; she became “invisible.”

Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 3, pp. 748-749: “From then on [after the Fuentes interview and diocesan note disavowing it], she was bound to a much more rigorous silence on everything concerning Fatima, and especially the great themes of the Secret… As we have seen, in its note of July 2, 1959, the chancery of Coimbra declared authoritatively that ‘Sister Lucy has nothing more to say on Fatima’! It also became increasingly difficult to see her, and for years no more of her writings were published. Her testimony was becoming bothersome. In 1962, Maria de Freitas remarked that ‘more and more, visits to Sister Lucy are forbidden; more and more she is becoming invisible.’”

Likes website

Hello Brother Michael Dimond and Peter Dimond,

Your website never stops amazing me and enlighten me, about all the evil that this world and our true faith is up against. My God have mercy on us all.

Joseph

Comment on Creation video

Dear Bother Dimond,

Thank you very much for the creation and miracles cd. I firmly believe it is the most important one of our time. I will send for one or more and other materials soon.It will be worth every penny. keep up the good work and fight for our faith!

Dennis Smith

Bayville, N.J.

St. Joan of Arc didn’t mess around

MHFM: In 1429 St. Joan of Arc was busy fighting the English, who were trying to take over France and make it part of the English kingdom. At the same time in Bohemia, the Hussites (followers of the heretic John Hus) were stirring up major civil unrest, destroying churches, monasteries and holy images. Here is what St. Joan of Arc dictated to be written to the Hussites:

“I would have long since visited you with my avenging arm if I were not occupied with the English war. But if I do not soon learn that you have amended your ways and returned to the bosom of the Church, perhaps I will leave the English and turn against you to exterminate this frightful superstition with the sword and end either your heresy or your lives. If you return to the light, if you enter the bosom of the Catholic faith, send me your ambassadors. But if you persist in your resistance… expect to see me, with the strongest human and divine power, to pay you in your own coin.” (Gies, Joan of Arc, p. 135)

Baptizing a baby

This afternoon I am going to discuss the Baptism of my granddaughter with a priest of the Saint Pius X. My intentions are to convince him to baptise her even though I and none of my family are members of his congregation. In speaking to him to arrange this meeting, I told him either he or I myself would baptise my granddaughter. He told me to read my catechism before attempting to baptise her.

My question is, if he will not baptise her, am I correct in baptising her myself rather than taking her to a priest in the Novus Ordo church?

MHFM: You shouldn't take her to the Novus Ordo priest or the SSPX priest. You should baptize her yourself. You know that a Catholic can never go to the New Mass, I hope.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.” (Denz. 696)

An objector writes in

Peace,

I don't agree with you on the Validity of the New Mass nor that the past or present Pope are antiPopes. The succession of St. Peter has not stopped for the Holy Scriptures say that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Holy Roman Catholic Church. If we have no Pope to lead the Church then the gates of hell have prevailed. God forbid. I like to point out that during the Protestant Revolt against the Church in the middle ages they also refused the Papacy along with many other truths of the Catholic faith. I also know that we did had two men who claimed the Papacy during the middle ages which eventually was resolved. However to say that the past or present Pope are false or antiPopes is totally ludicrous. Who has been leading the Church for all the past decades if not the successor of St. Peter. I know there are abuses in the New Mass throughout the world which I pray will stop soon but to say that it is invalid is condemning millions upon millions of Catholic apostasy and heresy. Could you say with certain and without doubt in your mind that all these people are not going to be saved if they don't find a Traditional Catholic Church. How many people do you think can find a Traditional Catholic Church throughout the world. Remember there are millions if not billions of Catholics. Do you believe that the Lord will permit such loss within his Holy Church? I think not. Scandal come and go but Satan will not prevail I assure you. I am one of those people who believes in the succession of St. Peter up to the present day. I believe in the Mass Old and New. I love the Traditional Catholic Mass I attend each Sunday. I don't condemn the people which go to the New Mass for I am one of those people once in awhile when I can't attend the Traditional one. I am a strong Catholic and God willing I will always remain one.

Praised be Gesu' and Maria,

DOM

MHFM: We’re sorry, but you are very wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that heretics cannot be popes, as our material proves. You remain oblivious to the fact that the Vatican II antipopes praise Protestantism and Luther and hold that the Papacy is meaningless. That is precisely why they are not popes. In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther, stated: “Our world even today experiences his great impact on history.”[51] And on June 14, 1984, John Paul II praised Calvin as one who was trying to “make the Church more faithful to the will of the Lord.”[52] To patronize, support and defend heretics is to be a heretic. To praise the worst heretics in Church history, such as Luther and Calvin, is beyond heresy.

Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical, May 8, 1844:

“But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors. They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books...”[53]

John Paul II also praised the notorious heretics Zwingli and Hus. He even went so far as to say that John Hus, who was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance, was a man of “infallible personal integrity”![54] You are not a defender of the Papacy, but a defender of those who deny the Papacy and those who defend Protestantism from the charge of heresy.

Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “… Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy… The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1982), pp. 197-198: “…On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870… As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism … none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”

There is nothing contrary to the teaching of the Church or the promises of Christ in saying that we are going through an extended period without a pope. In fact, this situation of a remnant Church blocked out of the view of most is precisely what is predicted in scripture. Yes, you feel comfortable because the one you are following is sitting in the Temple of God for all to see. Yes, he is sitting in the Temple of God alright, just like it’s predicted that the Antichrist and the abomination of desolation will (Mt. 24;15; 2 Thess. 2:3-4).

The New Mass is definitely invalid because it lacks the very words which the popes themselves authoritatively declared necessary for validity! Wake up from your bad willed spiritual stupor, which causes you to immediately reject positions uncomfortable to you rather than looking at the facts upon which those positions are based.

“Priests” for man?

"Conservative" Novus Ordo media has become little more than an organ for the neoconservative (warmongering) cabal within the Republican Party, just as "liberal" Novus Ordo institutions became instrumentalized by political causes in the 1960s and 1970s. Also, these "conservatives" in the NO continue to reinforce John Paul the Second's worship of the human being.

Frank Pavone, head of "Priests for Life" is going to sponsor "funeral services" for an aborted baby. While the baby did have a soul, according to Catholic teaching she did not receive baptism so died with Original Sin on her soul. What Frank Pavone is doing is "worship of man".

Matthew F.

MHFM: Thanks for that information; we weren’t aware of that. You are correct that it’s about the worship of man. Even in the fight against abortion waged by “conservative” members of the Vatican II sect, the issues of the faith are largely ignored or under-emphasized. It’s all about the violation of man’s dignity, not the fact that a soul is being deprived of salvation (which they don’t believe) or that the woman having the abortion is committing mortal sin. It’s sad to hear because Frank Pavone does a lot of good things; we hope he comes around to the true Catholic Faith.

Send in a question

MHFM: If you would like us to address a particular question during our radio program, e-mail it to us at mhfm1@aol.com. We can also take calls during the program at 1-800-275-1126.

Fr. Gobbi on us

Subject:

Fr. Gobbi Has You In His Cross Hairs

Dear Brothers: I had no idea Fr. Gobbi was Still around; this was a story [I read on a website].

Fr. Gobbi: “I have been made aware that some fringe groups are attacking the Holy Father by means of their writings, tapes, DVD’s, etc. Please, do not let yourselves be deceived by their diatribes. They want people to believe that he is a false pope; he is not! He was duly elected by the College of Cardinals, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Our second commitment as members of the MMP is to love, pray for and defend him. Following the retreat, the American and Canadian delegations spent a few days in Rome. After having attended two of his general audiences and listening to his reflections during the Sunday Angelus, I truly believe that Pope Benedict XVI is another great gift to the Church.”

During the retreat, Fr. Gobbi also reaffirmed his confidence in having Benedict XVI as our Pope to guide us through these difficult times for the Church and the entire world. Please continue to support him with your prayers and sacrifices

MHFM: Fr. Gobbi is clearly referring to us, since there is no other organization (of which we’re aware) that produces DVDs on why Benedict XVI is an antipope. For those who don’t know, Fr. Gobbi is the famous priest who built up quite a following in the past few decades by claiming locutions from Heaven. Integral to Gobbi’s message was the claim that he was told that John Paul was hand-picked by God the Father to lead the Church, and that John Paul II was “Mary’s pope.” Of course, those with the true Faith who are familiar with the facts of John Paul II’s complete apostasy immediately recognize that such a claim is utterly ridiculous and just the opposite of the truth. The fact that Gobbi promoted John Paul II as good alone proves that Fr. Gobbi wasn’t getting messages from Heaven, but messages from the Devil purporting to be messages from Heaven. He was an instrument of the Devil to keep people spiritually deceived in this time of apostasy; and with many he was very successful. His false locutions were precisely among those about which Our Lord warned in Matthew 24, when he said:

Matthew 24:24-26 “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold, he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets [editor: appearing in someone’s room], believe it not.”

One of us personally conversed with a gentleman who said that he experienced a preternatural event at one of Fr. Gobbi’s talks. We are talking about serious demonic activity here, which God allows in the last days to spiritually deceive those who receive not the love of the truth [that is, the acceptance of dogmas and the hatred of heresy, such as false ecumenism].

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 “Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”

In addition to his satanic message that John Paul II was “Mary’s pope,” Gobbi’s prophecies have been proven to be false. For instance, he said that the triumph of Our Lady (which, in his view, is some sort of universal restoration) would happen before the year 2000. It did not.

Emotional upon hearing the truth

After viewing your DVD on The Heresies of Benedict and of the "new order" church, I have cried all day. Where have I been and how can I just sit here and do nothing about the way Our Lord Jesus THE Christ is being insulted and demeaned.I plan to first educate myself with the Truth,and then I can with God's help educate my loved ones and those who really and trully love The Lord and did not realize this was taking place. I am trully frightened because as a Bible Catholic (I have studied the Bible for 22 years under several teachers) I know that Jesus Christ IS THE way THE Truth and THE Life, and He warned us that many false prophets would arise,but I NEVER thought that it would go as far… And then as a Catholic there is the "obedience thing", I was taught to obey. But in my heart I do know that I hear that we can't conform to the world, and that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, the Word does not change to become "politically correct". Who are we trying to please? God or man. The mystery of our faith that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, how could anybody doubt that, and the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is the altar (not table) and that is one of our greatest sacraments, when we celebrate the actual death and crucifixion of our Lord.. Anyway please could you direct, guide me, I live 40 miles south of the city of Miami,in Florida… Thank you very much, from your sister in Christ Jesus,

Lourdes V. Manning

Good point on V-2 sect’s idolatry

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

I just finished reading the updates on the email exchange portion of your website. It brought something to mind. The story in Daniel chapter 3, about Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago. There is quite a parallel with what is going on today. When you read the story you will notice that King Nabuchodonosor never told the people to stop worshiping their gods or God; he only ordered them, at the sound of the bell, to acknowledge and adore the false god. The same is happening today, the novus ordo church isn't telling anyone to give up the worship of their god, (so they think) but they must accept all the false gods/religions as well. How slick is the devil, as he tells everyone, have your God, but accept everyone else's too. And as the people follow, they deny the One True God, when they accept the false gods/religions. Sidrach, Misach and Abdenago knew that if they were to obey the order, they would have denied God and apostatized from the faith. If only people today had the faith to see it.

Paul Smith

MHFM: Yes, that’s a very good point. People don’t realize that what the Vatican II antipopes and heresies have done is – without even bringing the “gods” of the heathens into the temple itself – they have caused the people (who imbibe the new religion) to fall into an effective worship of the gods of the heathens by an acceptance of their false religions (and therefore the false gods they worship). So, for those who imbibe the new religion, it’s as if they have brought the idols of the heathens into the temple to be worshipped alongside the true God – without even literally having done so. If people really saw things the way they are and the way that God sees them, they would realize that this what the Vatican II antipopes have done: they have put the worship of false gods alongside the worship of the true God. That was their mission from Satan. We see this, for instance, in these quotes:

Paul VI, Address, Aug. 24, 1974: “Religious and cultural differences in India, as you have said, are honored and respected… We are pleased to see that this mutual honor and esteem is practiced…” (L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 12, 1974, p. 2.)

Paul VI says that religious differences are honored in India and that he is pleased to see this. This means that he honors the worship of false gods.

Paul VI, Address to Dalai Lama, Sept. 30, 1973: “We are happy to welcome Your Holiness today… You come to us from Asia, the cradle of ancient religions and human traditions which are rightly held in deep veneration.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 11, 1973, p. 4.)

People should think about this statement. Paul VI tells us that it is right to hold false religions which worship false gods in deep veneration. This means that it’s right to venerate false gods! Thus, Paul VI worshipped the false gods of these religions, and he was encouraging others to worship them as well by respecting such idolatry.

Paul VI, Message to Pagan Shinto Priests, March 3, 1976: “We know the fame of your temple, and the wisdom that is represented so vividly by the images contained therein.” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 11, 1976, p. 12.)

This may be the most evil, revealing and heretical statement that the apostate Paul VI ever uttered. He is praising the wisdom contained in the images in the pagan Shinto temple; in other words, he is praising the idols of the Shintoists themselves!

Likes the stuff

Dear Brother Michael Dimond,

God bless you for your labors for the True Faith, for our Lord and Holy Mother and the salvation of souls. May THEIR reign come!! Daily there are signs there will be almost no souls left faithful, without the Lord's mercy none would remain. Thank you for last week's heresy of the week on Bro. Roger again stating the Truth. Also, I read your book on Padre Pio daily, it is the best summation of his life, thank you!! May you be blessed in a special way this feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary, and every day,

In Her Immaculate Heart,

Louise

On Mother Teresa’s apostasy

Dear Brothers

The piece about Mother Teresa reminds me of martyrs who were asked to offer just a pinch of incense to the gods and their lives would be spared and they could worship as they pleased. They died rather than acknowledge a pagan religion. That's what Catholicism is about; it's about dying for the faith if necessary to preserve good example and save souls.

P. Moulder

Pensacola FL

MHFM: Yes, that’s exactly right. False ecumenism is so evil not only because it rejects the true God, but also because it mocks and renders meaningless the countless sufferings of Catholics not to become pagans or Muslims or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. etc. The Vatican II sect covers them all – praises paganism, Islam, heretical and schismatic sects, mocking all the saints and martyrs – and is thus the mother of all the (spiritual) fornications.

Apocalypse 17:5- "And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth."

On videos and saints

Hello,

I have enjoyed watching your online videos. I suppose my favorite is the "Creation and Miracles, Past and Present." The point about the earth being only around 5,000 years old is major. If our world is only 5,000 years old, it would make a person's life feel a lot more significant than if the earth is millions and millions of years old. The theory of evolution is a depressing topic.

Anyway, in your "Creation" video, Padre Pio is featured, a favorite saint of mine… Are there some saints in the church that could not really be saints? There have been some questions about the sainthood of Elizabeth Seton. Some have stated that there was a heavy lobby in Rome to make her a saint because she was an American, and one of the necessary miracles was dispensed with in order to make her a saint. Is this true? I was converted to Catholicism in the mid-80's by in older, more traditional Catholic priest, and he gave Elizabeth Seton as my saint. I've never really cared for that saint.

I've listened to the recorded versions of your 2 radio broadcasts... I think they have gone well and wish you the best in the future.

Sincerely,

Dona Beall

MHFM: Dona, thank you for your comments. Elizabeth Anne Seton was "canonized" by Antipope Paul VI in 1975. He obviously had no authority to canonize, since he was an antipope. This does not mean that Elizabeth Anne Seton is not in Heaven or wouldn't be worthy of canonization by a true pope; it simply means that, as of yet, she has never been canonized and therefore we cannot say infallibly that she is to be numbered among the saints.

Enemies in thy own house

MHFM: Our Lord tells us in Matthew 10 that one’s enemies will be those of one’s own house. We see this clearly in the case of St. Thomas Aquinas. His family was so opposed to his decision to pursue a vocation that they locked him up in a castle, and sent him a prostitute in the hope that it would destroy his vocation:

“…Thomas was abducted by his brother Rinaldo… and taken to the second family castle… Thomas… vehemently resisted attempts to tear the Dominican habit from his back, and in a famous episode which probably occurred on the night of his capture or the following night, drove away with a firebrand a prostitute who had been sent to his room to seduce him from his vocation.” (Carroll, The Glory of Christendom, Vol. 3, p. 260.)

Having trouble with EENS

I am wondering your opinion on the following. Regarding the dogma: "Outside the Church there is no salvation..."

I believe that the Church proclaims such a Dogma accurately and absolutely in regards to the ordinary means of salvation. I do not believe that the Church is hereby denying God the use of extraordinary means to save any soul He so desires. Now, that being said - I believe we must work under the assumption that all who die appearently outside the church will be damned - and thereby we must work very hard to convert all men.

God uses extraordinary means in nature at times (miracles), what would exclude God from using an extraordinary means of grace to save any soul He so desires? The reason that i believe this is because the Church has never officially declared anyone to be in helln (at least that i know of). If there was no possiblity for certain individuals to have been saved - why not declare them to be in hell? Is this way off base from your understanding of Catholic teaching? Thank you for your time

MHFM: Yes, it is way off base. The Church declares that all who die as non-Catholics go to Hell. You have a problem at this time believing that dogmas are truths accepted on the authority of God the revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. If God saved people outside the Church sometimes, He never would have allowed His Church to repeatedly define as an infallible dogma that NO ONE AT ALL is saved without the Catholic Faith. He cannot lie or deceive. Please focus on the bolded portion below:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:

Comments on show and salvation

Brother Michael and Brother Peter,

I am presently listening to your second radio show, so I don't know yet if you have mentioned that the idea that people can be saved so long as they are "good" and do the "best" they can to follow the will of God is actually condemned on 2 points: First, it gives the implication of salvation based on "works" WITHOUT the true faith, which is condemned; and secondly that God wouldn't actually lead someone of good will to the Truth, which is also condemned by the Church. As a matter of fact, this secondary idea that one who is of good will could possibly NOT come to the True Faith would make Jesus Christ a liar specifically when He said "Knock and the door shall be opened, etc..." Obviously the fault is with the person, NOT God.

Also, the man who called in who supported the SSPV (his name was Scott I think), and believed in BOD based on what St. Alphonsus said as if he were infallible, it could have been asked of him if he rejected the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary because St. Thomas wrote against it before it was infallibly declared a dogma. Certainly we can say today that St. Thomas certainly would admit today that he was wrong on that issue, and he is a saint in heaven also.

Great radio shows!

Bridget

Pius IX and salvation

Greetings Brother Michael and Peter Dimond,

I am a sedevacantist and do uphold the absolute necessity of water baptism for both justification and salvation. Also, I affirm Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I have a friend who is sedevacantist, but who unfortunately believes invincible ignorance is salvific. I tried to straighten him out about his error of thinking invincible ignorance is salvific, but I was unsuccessful. He brought up the following quote ... Pope Pius IX (1846-1878)

I do have a few questions for you please. One, is the above quote infallible? Two, given that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a defined dogma of the faith, what is the above quote actually saying about the status of the invincibly ignorant? Any help in clarifying this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you and take care.

MHFM: Thank you for your question. This is addressed in our book on salvation, and it was specifically addressed in the radio program we just did. We hope to have that show in our archive online soon. I would encourage you to listen to it, since it answers this question in detail and many others issues relevant to this topic.

Reader corroboration on SSPV

Dear Dimond Brothers:

I have been attending St. Pius V Masses and did not believe you when you stated they denied the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation," that is, until I read their 2005 fall issue of the Roman Catholic Magazine which featured a question/answer format regarding Catholic doctrine. They clearly teach that anyone who is disposed to trying to obey God, is invincibly ignorant of the true Church, and follows the good intentions of their consciences actually desire to be within the Catholic Church unconsciously, and are therefore actually a part of the Catholic Church and can attain to salvation with supernatural helps

MHFM: Thanks for that information. It’s necessary that you stop going there, since they condemn those who hold the true Catholic position. And here’s the quote to which we referred in our second radio program, which enunciates their heretical position on Outside the Church There is No Salvation:

About validity of a baptism?

Dear Bro. Diamond,

If one adds "Amen" after "I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is the baptism valid or by saying "Amen" does that make it invalid.

God love you,

Judith

MHFM: Thanks for the question. No, adding “amen,” which means “truly,” does not affect the validity of the baptism. It does not change the meaning of the essential form.

Really likes book

The Padre Pio book you sent is amazing. If a priest yelled at penitents like that today they would haul them off to the boondocks but souls would be saved before they got caught. :-) I'm ordering many copies. I'm glad you didn't emphasize the healings. I have a big book of those which I never finished because it became too boring. This is soul-saving stuff. I can hear Padre Pio yelling at me now to do better and to do right. I hope he keeps it up. My mother quit yelling when NewChurch ideas entered her head and my youngest sister had a very rough time of it. I didn't do so well with my own children either.

God Bless

Pauline Moulder

Pensacola, Florida

Comments from India

Dear Bro. Michael:

After reading much about Traditional Latin Mass from "Traditionalist" websites, most of us youths were gearing ourselves to obtain an indult mass for our local parish too. We had not cared much about the Pope as to what he does or say as long as he go on giving indult to the Latin Mass. We were thinking of encouraging others to do the same too. Enter your website and its all shattered ! Yes, you're right. Our intentions were wrong. Being a Catholic takes more than restoring the Holy Mass. Why should we be just a subset of a polygamous leader whose harem is filled with infidel concubines? These V2 maniacs will try to propagate and accomodate every garbage in this world until one day all the indultians will find themselves just "one out of many" and that the Roman Rite is not the official Rite of the Church anymore or that the Holy See is just another interfaith Fatima of today. By the way they go on suporting these heretics as "popes", someday they'll end up saying the creed as:"I believe in Catholicism, Protestanism, Buddhism, & Judaism; the holy prophet Mohammed ... the communion of all worshippers ..." (Checkout
www.sistersofembracement.org). Subjecting to the right successor of St. Peter comes first… Thanks for your enlightening articles. May God be with you,

- Dennis Gabil Momin
Meghalaya, India

The New Confirmation

Dear Bros Dimonds,

I went through RCIA and was confirmed into the Catholic Church Easter of 2001 by a Novus Ordo priest. Did I receive any of the graces associated with this sacrament?

Thank-you. Sincerely, Michael

MHFM: The short answer to your question is no. Since the new confirmation cannot be considered valid (see below), you did not receive the graces associated with this sacrament. The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971. The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.

The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:

“I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation:

“N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

As one can see the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed. The new form actually uses a form that is used in the Eastern Rite. Why would Paul VI replace the traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form of the Eastern Rite? We will see the significance of this change when we look at the matter of Confirmation, which has also been changed. Most theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter. In Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation, the imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and any spice may be used instead of balm!

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in confirmation (see Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6). But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation. It has been abolished. This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful. Further, in the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form. In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite form is used, the words are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite, thus rendering it highly doubtful.

Conclusion: All the changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful.

The New Rite of Baptism?

Dear Brothers,

I was baptized during the period of time when many of Paul VI's changes were taking place and I'm concerned about the validity of my baptism. I know the Episcopal rite of consecration was changed on June 18, 1968 and put into effect (I believe) on April 1, 1969, but when was the rite of baptism changed?

David

MHFM: The New Order of Baptism was promulgated by Paul VI on May 15, 1969. The essential form remains valid (unless the Novus Ordo “priest” decided to change it on his own); and, since anyone can validly baptize, those baptized with it would be considered validly baptized. But the removal of things around the essential form by Paul VI – while not destroying validity – serves to further confirm his revolutionary agenda. The questions “do you renounce Satan?” and “Do you believe…?” are now directed toward the “parents and godparents”; they are no longer directed toward the candidate for baptism. In the new rite, the candidate for baptism is not even asked if he believes.

Also, a newly baptized child no longer receives a white garment – it is only mentioned symbolically. The candidate for baptism is no longer required to make a baptismal vow. In addition, all the exorcisms of the devil are omitted in the Paul VI’s new rite of Baptism! Why would one remove the exorcism prayers? Although Satan is mentioned in the texts, he is not banished.

Conclusion: As long as the person baptizing in the Novus Ordo Church pours water (hitting the forehead) and uses the essential form – “I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – with the intention to do what the Church does, then the baptism is valid, despite these other problems in the surrounding rite. But these changes to the rite of Baptism, although not essential to validity, serve to reveal the true character and intentions of the men who have implemented the Vatican II revolution.

Wife N.O.

….what if my wife does not want to attend the traditional church you recommend and she wants to stay at the novus ordo?

thank you,

David D

MHFM: You simply must tell your wife that she cannot go to the Novus Ordo (the New Mass). A major problem today – and we hear all the time from people who ask questions very similar to yours (concerning a spouse who opposes them in their pursuit of salvation and truth) – is that so many make the devastating mistake of marrying a man or a woman who doesn’t care about the Faith. People don’t think too much about that when they get married, but it often turns out to be a life-long mistake.

Evidence

Dear Bros. Dimond,

Please help. I am by no means a theologian. I am just a regular working stiff catholic who is trying to do the right thing. You have some compelling evidence on your website that is really confusing me. In my heart I believe that what you are proclaiming is true, however, my mind still tells me that false prophets will try to bring you away from the church. By not attending mass, am I not being pulled away from the church? Even though the mass is not "valid", isnt the church the place where we worship God. Isnt it better to attend and worship God, than not attend at all? I live in a rural area in a very small parish. Attending a traditional mass is out of the question here as there are no traditional masses within 100 miles of me. Please show me some evidence that saying the Rosary at home instead of attending mass is acceptable by the
church.

Thank you ,
Bob

MHFM: The evidence that you cannot attend the New Mass and must stay home (if there isn’t an acceptable traditional option) is contained in the dogmatic teaching on the form of consecration from the Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, etc. It is also contained in the teaching that “all” in the consecration cannot suffice for validity, and that it is a grave sin to approach doubtful sacraments. It is also contained in the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that one cannot partake in non-Catholic worship, and the New Mass is a non-Catholic service which was invented by heretics and with the help of Protestant ministers. It was intended to Protestantize Catholic worship, and includes condemned practices such as altar girls. To a sincere person who considers this evidence, it becomes clear that one cannot attend the New Mass under pain of mortal sin. You are not worshipping God truly by going to the New Mass, and you are not receiving Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

Sr. Lucy

Your conspiracy theory concerning Sister Lucia of Fatima was fascinating reading, and important to you, since your whole doctrine about the Church (or non-Church as the case may be) hinges on your theory that she was murdered or made to disappear or whatever you may have believed to have happened to her. Of course, if you're wrong, your doctrine is invalid. But, as you know more about these things than I, I will leave the last word on the subject to you.

Jeff

MHFM: You have seriously misstated things here. Our “doctrine” doesn’t hinge upon Sr. Lucy of Fatima or any other individual.

Galatians 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

The fact that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church is a provable fact from many dogmatic teachings and the undeniable heresies and false doctrines which the Vatican II sect teaches. It’s insulting to the importance and the authority of these dogmas, as well as the significance of the heresies of the Vatican II sect, to describe things the way you have. One could argue that for Fatima to make sense to those who hold our positions it would make sense that there was a false Sr. Lucy, I would agree. But that would also be true of all who reject the Vatican’s version of the Third Secret, and hold that John Paul II didn’t sufficiently consecrate Russia – which includes about 100% of traditionally-minded professing Catholics. They would all have to agree with us that the post-Vatican II Sr. Lucy was a fraud, if Fatima is to make sense to their position (a position which rejects the post-Vatican II Sr. Lucy’s testimony that the Third Secret was revealed and that Russia was consecrated successfully by John Paul II, etc.) Further, it’s not a mere conspiracy theory that there was a fake Sr. Lucy. There is photographic evidence and undeniable evidence from the false Lucy’s testimony on matters pertaining to Fatima. This testimony proves she couldn’t have been the real one.

Likes Padre Pio book

Dear Bro. Michael,

This book on Padre Pio was the greatest book about his life that I have ever read. I enjoyed it so much.

Thank you.

Mary Ciaccio

King of Prussia, PA

Calling someone a moron?

Dear Brother's Dimond's

I listened to your radio program on Coast-to-Coast and I was very impressed with everything you said: UNTIL you lost your dignity when speaking on the phone with a man called JC, when you called him a MORON. Is this Catholic behaviour? Is this what we should expect of a holy monk? I am very disappointed in you. Uncommitted and ignorant people listening to that would think Catholics are rude, which we are not.

God bless you all

Alan Vincent

---

Calling someone a moron is to call someone a fool. That’s a sin. Our Lord said call no man fool (Mt. 5:22).

MHFM: A number of people complained about calling the heretic JC a moron (fool). All who complained about this are very mistaken. That particular heretic, who called in on a national radio program to level false accusations and scandalize millions, absolutely deserved to be called a moron – especially after accusing someone else of being a moron. Those who demonstrate a profound level of bad will or hypocrisy can certainly – and sometimes should – be denounced as fools. Both St. Peter Damian and St. Alphonsus call those who commit sins of impurity “fools.”

St. Alphonsus on the damnation of the impure: "Continue, O fool, says St. Peter Damian (speaking to the unchaste), continue to gratify the flesh; for the day will come in which thy impurities will become as pitch in thy entrails, to increase and aggravate the torments of the flame which will burn thee in hell: 'The day will come, yea rather the night, when thy lust shall be turned into pitch, to feed in thy bowels the everlasting fire." (Preparation for Death, abridged version, p. 117)

Our Lord also says call no man “Father,” but (as Catholics know) that doesn’t mean that we can never call someone “Father.” What Our Lord condemns in Matthew 5:22 is denouncing someone as a fool solely to insult his intelligence: For instance, someone who is trying understand something and you denounce him as a fool. That is truly a despicable sin and a tremendous violation of charity. But a public heretic who demonstrates profound bad will and accuses others of being fools (morons), and who wants to attack the true religion in an outrageous fashion on national radio, has certainly become a fool (not because of some natural defect of intelligence on his part) but solely because of his ill will. Therefore, he needs to be told that “moron” is exactly what he is. [A “moron,” by the way, is precisely “a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment” (www.dictionary.com). I think we can agree that applies to JC.]

This is why Sacred Scripture says that those who don’t believe in God (i.e. who demonstrate profound bad will) are fools:

Psalm 13:1- The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God…”

This is why Sacred Scripture, speaking of the perverse, says:

Ecclesiastes 1:15- “The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.”

That’s why the New Testament also refers to someone who demonstrates bad will in regard to his eternal salvation as a “fool.”

Luke 12:20- “But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?”

Calling someone a moron isn’t nearly as offensive or “insulting to his dignity” as calling someone “the first-born of Satan,” we think you would agree? Yet, the saints recognized that labeling certain heretics such things is not only permissible, but sometimes necessary.

The public heretic JC is a moron and a fool because he is a bad willed heretic – and since he is going to publicly accuse others of being such he needs to be told that he is actually such. What we don’t need today are spiritual wimps, who cry out every time the full “dignity” of antichrist heretics is not respected. Such people accomplish nothing for God. We don’t need people who are more concerned with making sure evil men are respected than that evil men are denounced. We need those who love the Lord and therefore hate evil.

Psalm 96:10 - "You that love the Lord, hate evil..."

Tan Books?

I was reading your web site, and read that you recommended the St. Louis De Montfort on the Rosary from Tan Books. However, you stated that you dont recommend many of the Tan books. Do you have a list of the books that should not be read from Tan?

Thanks!!!

Joe

MHFM: They have much beneficial material; however, some of their books promote the heresy that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith. This heretical idea was a big problem before Vatican II, as our material proves. As far as we know, Tan also sells a few books which promote the sinful birth control practice of NFP. But these are small in number, so it shouldn’t be a problem for strong Catholics who are convinced of the true positions.

Mass in England?

Dear Brother Michael,

Please be so kind as to tell me where I might find a 'true' Catholic church in London, England. Currently I go to Westminster Cathedral, the seat of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. Is he a heretic? Your site is very interesting. Many thanks,

RT Mulchrone

MHFM: Thanks for the e-mail. “Cardinal” Cormac Murphy O’Connor is a heretic. He is a leader in the post-Vatican II sect. He publicly endorses the heresies of Vatican II, such as false ecumenism, etc. He also accepts the New Mass. He is a validly ordained priest (having been ordained in 1956), but cannot be considered a valid bishop (having been ordained in 1977, after Paul VI’s new rite was instituted), nor a Catholic one. We don’t have the specific locations of Masses in England, but we have given you the e-mail address of someone who does know where the traditional Mass is offered in England. Using those guidelines, people have to apply them to their specific options. These guidelines include, of course, the fact that no one can go to the New Mass – but only a traditional Rite. No one can financially support any priest or “bishop” professing communion with Antipope Benedict XVI and the Vatican II sect. And one should not even attend the traditional rite of a priest or bishop who is notorious or imposing about his heretical position. But if there is a valid priest celebrating a traditional rite who is not notorious or imposing about his heretical position then we believe you may go (you don’t have to), without supporting him.

Attending “Catholic” college

Dear Brother Diamond,

First, thank you for speaking to the world about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...my family is relistening to a tape we made of Coast A.M. of your interview. I hope you are invited back!!!!

I would like to know what you think of someone attending Fordham Univ. in N.Y. My 22 year old son may be transferring there as a Sophomore. I e-mailed him the link to the "Jesuit" pagan "sculpture" in Canada from your site. Maybe he should read Fr. Malachi Martin's book "The Jesuits". What do you think? He does come to the traditional Mass at times, but not regularly, and does not receive the Sacraments! Please pray for him. His name is Jonah. Thanks,

Janet Anderton

MHFM: Thank you for your question. First, he shouldn’t bother reading Malachi Martin’s books. Malachi Martin mixed truth with error and misled many. He said that Buddhists could be saved without the Catholic Faith and that John Paul II never uttered a heresy.

Second, our feelings about young men and women attending colleges and universities is this: normally speaking (there may be rare exceptions, of course) since the campuses of these colleges and universities are cesspools of iniquity – and living in the dorms surrounded by the pagans and non-Catholics who make mortal sin a way of life at such colleges and universities would be an almost-constant occasion of sin (with others constantly goading one to partake in such party-type activity) – it would be a tragic spiritual mistake for most young men and women to subject themselves to such a situation by living in the dorms at these colleges and universities. Almost 100% of them would fail in such an environment and fall into mortal sin, no matter how much they protest that they wouldn’t. To preserve a person’s soul from such snares (and preserving the soul is the most important thing to be considered – Mt. 16:26), to attend such a college or university a person should either live at home and commute (that way he would be away from the mortally sinful party-lifestyle) or rent an apartment and live by himself so that he doesn’t have to live and constantly be around non-Catholics who are frequently committing mortal sins and/or encouraging him to do so (e.g. by inviting him to parties, etc.).

“Catholic” Fordham University, since it’s Catholic in name only, would be considered just like any secular/pagan university. Hence, we believe one could attend provided that one doesn’t take religion classes or live amidst the sinful surroundings, but can be separate in some way by commuting or having one’s own place away from the others.

Some reaction to our new radio program

Dear Brothers Michael & Peter,

Just happened to turn on the computer last night and found that you were doing a radio show. I listened to the whole show. Great Job!!!!

Rose Beckerich

---

Dear Brothers Dimond:

I was able to tape Most of it...(Computer wouldn't start up at first). You Definitly did an excellent job of presenting in a clear way just what we are up against. Am making copies for my friends. I, too, am very interested in what you have to say about this Divine Mercy thing. Will be looking forward to your posting on that. Thank you so much for everything you do,

May God Bless you abundantly,

Carol

---

Hello Bro.Michael,

I did listen to your program,had a problem with the buffering,but,you have already explained the problem. I enjoy being able to listen to the audios, is it possible to place your radio program in that category of tapes to listen to,the radio program would be able to be listened to for a week until the next radio program for those who aren't able to listen the day of the program. God Bless You.You are doing amazing work.

Paula

---

Greetings to The Most holy Family Monastery:

Your radio show was much like the web site: terse, blunt, to the point and accurate. Excellent delineation of The Great Apostasy, The Second Vatican Council-its many lies and a good discussion about Fatima and The third Secret; of course we are looking forward to more in the future. It is a fact that we are drowning in lost souls looking for their Church once more... Many are so confused and have hearts of steel on account of it-some are embittered. They are all around me and at times it is overwhelming. But I love to pray for the increase of the virtue of hope...

In Christ, Jesus

Michael Howard Pierce

---

Dear Brothers,

Thank you for the excellent radio program!!!

[pm]

---

You brought up many interesting points. I am not a scholar and rely on my memory of the Latin Church and now deceased relatives to clearly see Rome is as you say, heretical. Hopefully you will be archiving this program on your web site as I can think of a few people who need to listen.

Robert Bowlby

Copy of program?

Dear Brother Peter and Brother Michael.

Is your radio show from today going to be archived at your website, so that those who can't listen to it live can still hear it? Will you be recording it to cassettes or CD's to make available to people?

---

Will Tuesday's show be archived? I would like to hear it but will be away from the computer that evening.

MHFM: We will have a copy of the program, which we will probably make available.

Radio Show question

Dear Brothers,

Will your radio show be accessible to people running the Mac OS X operating system on Macs and Powerbooks (i.e. those who don't have a Windows-based PC)? I'm asking because I have a PowerBook running the Mac OS X operating system and when I clicked on the radio program link on your homepage I received the following message: Safari can’t open “mms://wms7.streamhoster.com/lv_mhfm1” because Mac OS X doesn’t recognize Internet addresses starting with “mms:” Safari is the Apple/Mac browser that the Mac operating system uses. Please advise if there's any workaround so that I can hear your program.

Thank you for your time.

David

MHFM: Thanks for the question. Your question is answered here:

Radio Show Technical Notes

Divine Mercy devotion?

Brother Diamond...just wanted to ask you a question...What do you think about Divine Mercy? I listened to you on the talk show the night that you were on...what an impression you left on me..some people don't like to hear what you said...but you told it like it is...

I would appreciate a response as to what you think about Divine Mercy...E mail me back when you have time and thanks for your help...The real GOD BLESS!

Bobby Parkinson

MHFM: Thanks for your question. We have received this question many times. We have a detailed answer to this question which we will be posting this week.

Likes audio downloads

Dear Brother Dimond, I would like to thank you for all the information on your web site. Being a Vatican II baby, I haven't had much of an education in the true Catholic faith, so at the age of 49 I'm trying to learn it now. Your site is invaluable to me and I'm sure many, many others like myself. I particularly like the section you have with some of your videos and audio downloads. What a great idea! I'm downloading them now and will listen to them on my MP3 player…

Scott Labash

Adding insult to apostasy

MHFM: Some of our readers might recall that in 2000 John Paul II attended the Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. As part of this act of apostasy, John Paul II took off his shoes before entering the mosque. Well, the “Omayyad” caliphate (a line of Muslim rulers), after which that particular mosque he attended is named, was a line of Muslims rulers that was hugely involved in waging war on Catholic Spain in the 700-year war of Muslims vs. Christians in Spain.

“Abdurrahman the last survivor of the Omayyads had become the ruler of Muslim Spain about the time that Fruela became the ruler of Christian Spain; by 759 the two kings clashed in Galicia.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 298.)

The fact that the mosque he attended was named after a group that is so representative of anti-Christianity just adds insult to his apostasy. The blood of all the faithful Catholics who died fighting the Omayyads for the very survival of Christian Spain cries out against him.

Apocalypse 17:6- "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered when I had seen her…"

You can see pictures of John Paul II in the Omayyad Mosque here:

John Paul II's Apostasy with the Muslims Photo Gallery

Third Secret

Dear Brothers,

Where in Portugal is the dogma of Faith being preserved and by whom? I am referring to what the Blessed Mother told Sister Lucia in Fatima. I surmise that the Blessed Mother is stating that it is the country, as a whole, that will be preserving the Catholic Faith until, I assume, Christ's Second Coming .. can you offer an explanation?

Thanks,

LML

MHFM: Since we don’t have the complete sentence, we cannot say for sure, but it could be: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved in a faithful remnant…” Or: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…”

About Consecration to Mary

Dear Brothers Dimond

I wish to make a Consecration of myself to Mary, following the St Louis de Montfort method. However, I note that on the day of Consecration we are supposed to receive Holy Communion and make the Act after this, as well as make an offering such as light a candle to Our Lady in Church. In these times of apostasy, I am unable to attend a Catholic Mass (only the Indult is available), and I would appreciate your advice on how a person should make the Consecration in these circumstances of not being able to receive Holy Communion or visit a Catholic Church that is not connected with the counterfeit Catholic Church.

Best wishes

Gerard

MHFM: Thanks for the question. There is no obligation to make the Consecration to Mary before a priest or in a church, especially today. You should make it in your home.

The price of the Shroud

MHFM: Not very long after the birth of the false religion of Islam, the militant Muslims had overtaken Christian Armenia. In the 10^th century the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Lecapenus took up the cause of the resisting Christian Armenians and gave them his best general, John Gourgen [a.k.a. Courcouas], to aid them. Courcouas was tremendously successful in retaking Armenia from the Muslims.

“In the spring of 943 Courcouas reached the walls of the still Christian, but long Muslim-ruled city of Edessa, where the Holy Shroud of Christ (then called the ‘Mandylion’)… was preserved in a sanctuary in the domed cathedral, famed throughout the East for its beauty… To the Muslim rulers of Edessa John Courcouas, the conqueror who was carrying all before him, stated his terms: They could keep the city, intact and undamaged – and he would pledge that the Byzantine empire would never attack Edessa again. He would release to them two hundred of their highest ranking captives in his hands. He would pay them 12,000 silver crowns. All this was his price – for the Shroud.” (Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2, p. 414.)

The Muslims finally agreed to give up the Shroud (now known as the Shroud of Turin).

Profound Change

The information you have provided on your website has changed me profoundly.

Sincerely
Patrick Sweeney

Finland

The Last Gospel

In the Last Gospel of the Mass from St. John we read:

"But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

What does the bold faced quotations mean - what does it refer to? Does "born" refer to baptism. It seems pretty clear to me, but I may not be understanding it clearly. Could you give me a take on what it might mean? I read it every Sunday at Mass and wonder it's meaning.

Thanks!

Dede

MHFM: Thanks for the question. Yes, we have an opinion about this verse. This was actually mentioned in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (section 22). While we cannot say infallibly what this particular verse means since the Church has never issued any infallible declaration on this specific verse, here is what is said about it in the book. We think the correct conclusion is pretty obvious:

John 1:12-13-“But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”

The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,” that which St. Paul called “adoption of sons” (Rom. 8:15). This is the theological and scriptural term for Justification, the state of sanctifying grace (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4). The term signifies the transition from being a child of Adam (the state of original sin) to becoming an adopted son of God (the state of sanctifying grace). Pope St. Leo the Great, in fact, confirms that this passage of St. John’s Gospel is talking about becoming a son of God by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion (+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).” (The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.)

So as God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state of grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD”! The “will of the flesh” is desire. The “will of man” is desire. “Blood” is blood. In my opinion, what God is saying here in this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e., baptism of blood or desire). One must be born again of God. The only way to be born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).

Coast to Coast question

Hello Bros. Dimond!

Is there any way of getting a hold of your interview (Coast to Coast - 7/10/06) with out having to subscribe to their website? I'd much rather give you the money, rather than Coast to Coast. Thanks! God
bless.

Andrew Leyva
Tucson, Arizona

MHFM: You don’t have to subscribe to their website, but you would have to purchase it from them. Coast to Coast has the rights to it.

Comment

Excellent post on "Jesus is God".

Sincerely,
Patrick Walsh

Patrick Walsh J+M+J

Can one attend a Creation lecture by a Protestant?

Dear Br Dimond.

A protestant invites me to attend a lecture on creation by another protestant this Friday. It's not in any protestant temple and there's no religious service. If there's no praying together, can I attend it? Thanks

MHFM: Yes, we don’t see any reason why you couldn’t go unless attacking the Catholic Faith is somehow an integral part of his presentation on Creation (which we highly doubt). You should at least try to convert the Protestant who invited you, of course, if you haven’t done so already.

Where does it say Jesus is God?

Could you please explain a couple of things for me. Where in the bible does it say that Jesus is God in a human form. Everywhere I look it says Jesus is the son of God... Thank you for your time I look forward to your reply.

Gary

MHFM: The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and the Unitarians deny that Our Lord is God. But there are many passages in the Bible which show that Our Lord is God. The first few that come to mind are:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1.)

“Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord, and my God” (John 20:28).

“Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John 8:58).

“I am” is the very name that God gave to Himself when He appeared to Moses in the burning bush to indicate that He is the eternal, uncreated supreme being. When Our Lord said this of Himself, He was clearly indicating that He is God. This is why the Jews “took up stones” to kill him (John 8:59). The prophecy of Isaias 9:6, which is clearly about Our Lord, also proves that He is God:

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Isaias 9:6)

One of our personal favorites on this point, but which is often overlooked, is Acts 3:15. Referring to how the Jews preferred the murdered Barabbas to Our Lord and had Him crucified, St. Peter says:

“But the author of life you killed…” (Acts 3:15)

The author of life is God. Thus, Our Lord is God. There are many other passages, such as Apocalypse chapter 1:

“And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man… And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and behold I am living forever and ever…” (Apoc. 1)

Some people are unaware that God describes Himself as “the first and the last” in the Old Testament.

“I the Lord, I am the first and the last” (Isaias 41:4).

There are many other passages we could bring up, but the fact that Our Lord is God is also proven by what is called “implicit Christology.” This means that the manner in which Our Lord spoke showed that He is God.

“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Notice that Our Lord, commenting on the words and commandment of God Himself in Exodus 20:14, clearly puts His own declaration on the same level: You have heard that God has said, BUT I SAY, says Our Lord. This way of speaking shows that He is God. The fact that Our Lord is God and man (one Divine Person with two natures) was held by the earliest fathers of the Church and is a truth which must be held by all who want to be saved and possess the true Faith:

From AD 108, St. Ignatius to the church at Ephesus: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been blessed in greatness through the fulness of God the Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God, to the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation: abundant greetings in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy." (Ephesians 1)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

A new internet-radio program

MHFM: We’re very happy to announce that we will be starting a new internet-radio program in just a matter of weeks. People will be able to listen online by clicking a link on our website. We hope that this new program will be up and running within a few weeks. Stay tuned…

2nd edition of book

MHFM: Our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation is going to be printed in its 2^nd edition in the coming weeks, since we’re almost completely out of the first edition. Some very interesting points have been (and are being) added to the 2^nd edition. In the coming days, we will probably be posting some of the points and quotes that will be new to the 2^nd edition.

Third Secret question

I heard Brother Michael's interview on Coast to Coast. I cannot believe they let that lunatic JC yell and scream away on the airways. Anyway, I do have a serious question: If the 3rd secret given at Fatima by Our Lady was never revealed or made public, how do we (or how does Brother Michael) know what it contained?

Thank you!

Susanna Szilard

MHFM: Thank you for your question. While we don’t know infallibly, we can say almost with certainty (based on a number of things) that the Third Secret concerns apostasy from the Catholic Faith by people who purport to hold positions of authority in Rome. First, the very words which come just before the undisclosed Third Secret are: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved… etc. [Third Secret].” Since these are the last words before the Third Secret, they imply that the Third Secret deals with the dogma of Faith not being preserved. Second, people who have commented on the Third Secret, including high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect – who purport to have read the Third Secret or to have acquired intimate knowledge of its contents (including Joseph Ratzinger, “Cardinal” Ciappi) – reveal that it has to do with the loss of the Faith.

"In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."

(Mario L. Ciappi, “cardinal” and household theologian to John Paul II, quoted in The Devil's Final Battle, p. 33)

Third, Our Lady said it would be clearer in 1960, and this was just after Vatican II was called – the very council which put into motion the major apostasy from the Faith we are all now living through.

Interesting supplement to H.O.W.

MHFM: In the Heresy of the Week, some comments are made about the Jewish domination of the media. Those who doubt this fact simply need to do more research. To give just a tiny example, here is a link to some of the most prominent anchors featured on the website of CNN – “the most trusted name in news.”

CNN's featured anchors

Pictured (from left to right and then down) are only four anchors that CNN chose to picture at the link above: Larry King, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper.

Larry King is a known Jew. Paula Zahn is a Jew, who is married to Richard Cohen. Wolf Blitzer is a well-known Jew, former correspondent for The Jerusalem Post. We don’t know if Anderson Cooper is a Jew, but he may very well be. So, three out of the four anchors (and possibly all four) that CNN chose to feature in this picture of its prominent anchors are Jewish! Remember, Jews only constitute 2% of the American population. And this is not even to include all of the Jewish correspondents featured on CNN, such as: Jeff Greenfield, Gary Tuchman, Sandy Berger, Rahm Emanuel, Andrea Koppel (whose father is Ted from ABC), Ben Franken, Candy Crowley, etc., etc., etc. This doesn’t just hold true for CNN, of course, but basically all the networks. The producers, directors, owners, etc. is where their power really lies. The most trusted name in Jews…?