Questions, Answers and Comments
* If you are trying to print
out only certain pages of this or any other document, use the Print-preview
option under the File drop down option on the upper left side of your
computer. This will allow you to print only
those pages you want to print.* We don’t
post all of the questions we receive, but only those that we can post and to
which we have the time to formulate a “post-worthy” response. Missing numbers were deleted to save space or
are covered elsewhere on our website.
Some Q &A
105- Question about material on the Faith and what we offer?
103- Any response to this attack on Sedevacantism?
102- What is the law on fasting before Communion?
101- Why would you say that John Vennari is a heretic?
100- Do you accept that catechumens can be saved without Baptism?
99- Is the Holy Ghost present when
Cardinals elect a Pope?
98- How can I prove to someone that Casti Connubii of Pius XI is infallible?
97- Questions about materials on the Faith
and Zionist control?
96- What Pope said that non-Catholic religions are the gates of hell?
95- Question about one of Benedict
XVI’s books?
94- Comment on Heresy of the Week about
Andre and Fulham
93- Follow up question on the SSPX’s schism?
92 – Questions about Thuc line, no Mass, etc.?
91 – Can a person ever receive baptism
validly without receiving the remission of original sin?
90 – Bob S. on “or” vs. “and” in the
Council of Trent?
89 – How can the SSPX be in schism for not being under an Antipope?
88 – Question about Benedict XVI and a note on one of his heresies
87 – Question about what it means to say people profess “communion” with someone?
86 – Question about a traditionalist
bishop?
85 – Question about indefectibility, Papal Election?
84- Question about a “traditional”
priest?
83 – Question about Cremation and Opus Dei?
82 – Question about “Pope” Joan, Apparitions and Our Lady?
81 – Question about St. Catherine’s statement accepting the devil as the Pope?
80 – The idea that a
heretic cannot be Pope is condemned by the Council of Constance?
79 – Are there exceptions on the issue of non-Catholics not receiving Communion
77 – Question about the
40 martyrs of Sebaste?
76 –
Another concern about the Novus Ordo words for the Consecration of the bread
being valid
74 – Question about
Ursula O.?
73 – How can one judge a
Pope?
70 – Question about
judging souls?
69 – An attempted to response on the Co-Redeemer issue
68 – Where does the
Church teach that the Sacraments cannot be changed?
66 – More Notes on
Gruner’s position from a reader
65 – More on the
question: Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?
61– An attempted response to the strongest argument
refuting baptism of desire
60– What do you think of Bishop Tom S. and Fr. Dennis
M.?
59– What is the strongest argument against baptism of
desire?
57– Where to attend Mass? SSPV? SSPX?
56– What about “Sister Lucia”? She accepted John Paul II. Is she condemned?
55– Reader informs us that Fr. Radecki of CMRI commends
John Paul II to people’s prayers!
54– How to approach Novus Ordo family members? What does one say?
52 – Can a Catholic pray privately for the soul of a
deceased heretic such as John Paul II?
51 – Question about the obelisk in the Vatican and the
possible destruction of Rome?
50 – Does such a website uphold Outside the Church There
is No Salvation?
49 – Question about the Abomination of Desolation and
the Eastern Rites?
48 – What is the Church’s teaching on the Schiavo case?
46 –
An objection concerning the upside down cross over John Paul II’s head
45 – A
comment and an update on the E-discussion
44 –
Can one attend the New Mass for any reason, such as Confirmation ceremony,
funeral, etc.
43 – So what were the changes that Paul VI made to the Sacrament of Confirmation?
42 – Why bother trying to avoid Hell when the odds are against me? And the Fewness of the Saved
41 – Help with a debate against a Vatican II apostate
40
– Do traditional priests have
Jurisdiction?
39 – Can one serve the altar at the SSPX?
38 –
What is the meaning of the term material heretic?
37 –
How can the New Mass be invalid if the Consecration of the Bread hasn’t been
changed?
36 –
Unmistakably Masonic symbols on Paul VI’s mother’s funeral monument
35 –
Some important questions from a new traditional Catholic?
34 –
Question about Mysterium Fidei; many
to all; and traditional bishops?
33 – A
comment and why don’t you debate the Novus Ordo types?
32–What
are the heresies of John Paul II before his election?
30- How can a Catholic attend the Mass of a heretic?
Question
107- An important question about the how the entire Church could accept an
Antipope for a period of time?
My brother asked me a question today (in
the aforementioned conversation) which I couldn't answer: "If John
XXIII was an antipope, why didn't anyone say so at the time? Why was
sedevacantism a later development? Why would God allow the whole Church (as far
as we can see) to be in communion with an antipope (even if they were so
inculpably)?"
How would you answer that, Brother?
When did the first sedevacantists begin to write and speak, and why did so
much time elapse before they did? If the true Church must always be in
existence (which of course it must be), and if this true Church is not the
false Church ruled over by the Vatican II antipopes (John XXIII through
Benedict XVI), why wasn't the true Church an available alternative for
people in 1958?
If, on the other hand, we seek to escape
this problem by saying that the true Church at that time thought John XXIII was
the pope because his uncatholic nature only became manifest with the passage of
time, then how could the true Church be in error (thinking he was their pope)
for all that time? Any thoughts?
MHFM: I
would answer your brother’s question by reiterating, first of all, that people
don't attach themselves to the new Church (and thus leave the true Church)
until they obstinately embrace the heresies of the new sect or accept the
Vatican II Antipopes as Catholics after they've seen their heresies.
Hence, people can be Catholic and remain
part of the Catholic Church for a period of time believing that someone is the
true Pope who is not – as St. Vincent Ferrer did, and as many other cases in
Church history show. Thus, no claim
whatsoever can be made that the Church didn’t exist under John XXIII because
almost everyone accepted him as Pope. I
say “almost” everyone because those privy to John XXIII’s fraudulent “election”
and the illegal blocking of Siri’s, such as the Scortesco family, obviously had
their doubts.
Now, to your
question (how could the entire Church – or basically the entire Church
–mistakenly believe that John XXIII, an Antipope, was the true Pope?), I would
answer by quoting Pope Paul IV, who declared that Catholics could not accept
such a heretical impostor, even if obedience were given to him by
"all" – indicating by such a statement that this is a
possibility.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In
addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We
enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it
shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch
or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already
been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion
or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic
Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been
uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null,
void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to
acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity)
through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority,
nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such
by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing
situation;
Obviously,
Pope Paul IV wouldn’t have stated “nor…through obedience accorded to such by all” if it were
theoretically impossible for all to give obedience to an Antipope. This clearly suffices to answer your
brother’s objection. It’s quite obvious
that this Bull of Paul IV was not only inspired by God, but prophetic. It’s as if God were making sure that what He
would allow to happen in the last days (a counterfeit sect and a series of
Antipopes, with the first one, John XXIII, being accepted by basically everyone
for a short period of time) was foreseen in the Magisterial teaching of the
Church. It’s as if God made sure
that the resistance He would require of true Catholics in the last days and the
Great Apostasy was given its theological justification and precision five
hundred years in advance! This is
further intimated by the fact that Paul IV said at the beginning of the Bull
that he was writing it to prevent the arrival of the “abomination of
desolation” in the holy place – a prophetic intimation that his teaching, and
the issue it covers (a heretical Antipope in the Vatican), will be relevant at
the time of the abomination of desolation.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1.…Remembering also
that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be
counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if
they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the
simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless
peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal
matters; and We have been concerned also
lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of
desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place.
In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as,
with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying
themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the
wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark
and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the
hireling…
Question 106- An important question about the
interpretation of dogmatic statements and one’s authority to use them?
Hi,
Some say
that quoting dogmatic statements to prove that Benedict XVI is a heretic, that
a heretic is not the Pope, that people cannot be saved without Baptism, etc. is
like a Protestant privately interpreting Sacred Scripture. What is the response to this?
MHFM: Thank you
for your question. The people who make
this assertion don’t understand Catholic teaching or what constitutes fidelity
to the Magisterium. This issue of
“interpretation” was addressed in our book Outside
the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, but we’ve recently
come across an additional point that is extremely important in this
regard. In its Decree on the Sacrament
of Order, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons of
Trent are for the use of all the faithful!
Pope Pius
IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap.
4: “These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council
to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It
has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate
canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of
faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the
Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.” (Denz.
960)
The word “canon" (in Greek: kanon)
means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to
determine, rule, or measure. The Council
of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making use of these rules of
Faith (the meaning of the word “canon”), may be able to recognize and
defend the truth in the midst of darkness!
This very important statement blows away the claim of those who
say that using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.” This canon teaches exactly the opposite of
what they assert: that all cannot make use of these rules of Faith! This is a very important statement not only
for the salvation/baptism controversy, but also for the sedevacantist issue.
The point of the dogmas is so that the
faithful know what they must believe and reject, so that they are independent
of the mere opinions of men, and are following the infallible truth of
Christ. If the faithful have to rely on
someone else giving their version or understanding of the dogmatic definition,
then that (fallible) person becomes the rule of faith, and not the infallible
dogmatic definition.
St.
Francis De Sales explained it well against the Protestants.
St. Francis De
Sales (Doctor of the Church), The
Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s]
determination is received, will not another
also be wanted? Who will not want to
apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?... And why not
a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the
third? Everything must be done over
again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside
down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings…
what we say is that when a Council has
applied this test, our brains have not
now to revise but to believe.”
The “interpretation” ends
with the words of the dogma itself! If
it doesn’t, then it never ends, as we saw above – you just have fallible interpretation after fallible
interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation. If the buck doesn’t stop with the infallible
definition (the Chair of Peter), then it never stops. I pointed this fact out to a somewhat
well-known “apologist” for the Vatican II sect in a telephone
conversation. He was arguing that our
usage of Catholic dogmatic teaching (the teaching of the Chair of Peter) is
like Protestant “private interpretation.”
He was saying this in an attempt to defend some of his heretical beliefs
which contradict dogma, such as his belief that non-Catholics can be saved. I said to him, “then who interprets the
dogma? And who interprets the
interpretation of the dogma?” After I said “who interprets the interpretation
of the dogma… and who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation… and
who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation…”
he remained deadly silent for the first time in the conversation. He obviously had no response to the factual
point that was made, simply because there is no response. In the heretical view of dogmatic teaching
that he espoused, the Catholic Faith is nothing more than Protestantism –
fallible, private, human interpretation with no Chair of Peter to give one the
final word. The following quotation also illustrates this point
very well.
“Why did
Athanasius know he was right? Because he
clung to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else said. Not
all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for
the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful,
clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most ‘learned’
theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That
is the whole purpose of the Church’s infallibly defined teaching – to
make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however
high their rank.” (The Devil’s Final
Battle, p. 183. *we don’t endorse this book, but this is an excellent
point.*)
BUT CAN’T MEN MISUNDERSTAND A DOGMATIC DEFINITION?
Of course they can. Men can misunderstand or pervert anything and
any form of teaching that could ever be transmitted. If Jesus Christ (the Truth Himself) were here
speaking to us, many people would without doubt misunderstand or pervert what
He said, just as many did when He came the first time. Likewise, just because some can and do
misunderstand what the Chair of Peter is declaring, it does not mean that those
who faithfully adhere to and make use of its definitions are engaging in
Protestant “private interpretation.” It
is just the opposite, as we saw from the Council of Trent above. And that is why the Magisterium has condemned
the idea that dogmas are just “interpretations”!
Pope Pius X,
Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The
dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from
heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts,
which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
(Denz. 2022)
Pope Pius X,
Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The
dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the
notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the
evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the
little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned (Denz. 2054)
Pope Gregory
XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832:
“… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed;
nothing added; but they must be preserved
both as regards expression and meaning.”
*Note: We’ve added a section about this to
our main-page, in the section “Guide for the rest of this Website.”
Question
105- Question about material on the Faith and what we offer?
… I wish to know what you offer
and I can utilise in my faith as a catholic christian
Regards
ALPHONSE KIKWAI
KENYA
MHFM: We have re-organized our website, and added
information that we feel is critical for people to know. So I would look at some of those sections on
the website. We will also soon be responding to a few recent attacks against
Sedevacantism.
Question 104- How to get this item?
PLEASE
RESPOND TO THIS E-MAL
I WANT VERY
MUCH TO BUY THE BOOK : OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
SALVATION , written by Brother Peter Dimond
I DON’T KNOW HOW TO GET ONE ??? LIVE IN NORWAY, PLEASE HELP
MOST
SINCERELY
MR ROY
LINDQUIST
From a brother of the same faith…….
MHFM: Hello, those outside the U.S.A. can purchase
the book for $7.00 in US funds (price includes shipping). It’s $4.00 for those inside the
U.S.A. You can send a check or a money
order to the address below, or give us a credit card. The address is:
Most Holy Family Monastery
4425 Schneider Rd.
Fillmore, NY
14735
Or you may want to order our 7
video or 7 dvd special, which is $25.00 US funds for those outside the
U.S.A. This special includes the book for free, plus 3 audio tapes. (This special is only $15.00 for those inside
the U.S.A.)
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question
103- Any response to this attack on Sedevacantism?
Greetings,
In the new Summer Issue of "The Fatima
Crusader" Nicholas Gruner and Christopher Ferrara have attacked
sedevacantism, the latter vulgarly reffering to it as "the
Enterprise." Please answer these erroneous remarks as soon as you obtain a
copy or it is published in the internet, as many people… are using these very
arguments to lure people to the clutches of the anti-church and the anti-pope.
MHFM:
Yes, we will be responding, so please stay tuned. But we just got our hands on a copy of The Fatima Crusader today.
Question 102- What is the law on fasting before
Communion?
What is the
required time to not eat or drink (besides water ?) prior to receiving Holy
Communion.
M of CT
MHFM:
The 1957 law
of Pius XII states that priests and faithful before Mass or Holy Communion
respectively – whether it is the morning, afternoon, evening or Midnight Mass –
must abstain for three hours from solid foods and alcoholic beverages, and for
one hour from non-alcoholic beverages.
Water does not break the fast.
Question 101- Why would you say that John Vennari is a heretic?
Why would you say that John Vennari is a
heretic?
MHFM: There is a very specific and very simple
answer to this question. Every honest
person will agree with this, since it is an undeniable fact. John Vennari holds that one can reject the
Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic.
Here’s the proof:
John Vennari, Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla
Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11: “This is not the first time Father Ratzinger denied the dogma
‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’.
In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, which was a
commentary on the Second Vatican Council, Father Ratzinger rejoices that the
true teaching of the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to the minds of
the progressivists who drafted the document, (Ratzinger was one of them) was
that conversion is now an option for the non-Catholic, not an obligation. He writes: ‘…A basic unity – of churches that
remain churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion,
even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience
motivate to seek it.’ Cardinal Ratzinger admitted on numerous
occasions that he had not changed since the time of the Council when he
wrote these heterodox statements. In
1984, Ratzinger said that since the Council he ‘has not changed.’”
John Vennari
fully admits that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) has rejected the dogma Outside the
Church There is No Salvation for years and still rejects it. Yet, he holds that Ratzinger is a
Catholic. It is a fact,
therefore, that John Vennari holds that
one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. John Vennari is a complete heretic and is not
a Catholic. The same applies to
“Tradition in Action,” who wrote the article entitled “Father Ratzinger’s Denial
of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” yet still holds that he is a Catholic. By continually admitting that people whom
they still regard as Catholics reject Catholic dogma, they are simply mocking
and denying the necessity of accepting Catholic dogma to be part of the
Church.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9),
June 29, 1896:
"No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call
himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set
out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of
these he is not a Catholic."
Question 100- Do we accept that catechumens can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism?
Hello, Do
you accept that catechumens have been saved without baptism of water? Thank you
for your help,
Louis B.
MHFM: No, of course not. Unbaptized catechumens cannot be saved
because no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy
baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place
among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the
body of the Church. And since
death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the
Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let
him be anathema.”
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our
Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into
some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Unbaptized catechumens are also not members
of the Church; they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff; and they don’t have
the Faith – but rather beg for it – which bestows life eternal. Unbaptized catechumens don’t have the faith
to be saved until they receive it in the Sacrament of Faith, Baptism.
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex
cathedra: “… the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’ without faith no
one is ever justified… This
Faith, in accordance with Apostolic Tradition, catechumens beg of the Church
before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows
life eternal,’ (Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi).”
This is why catechumens who died without
baptism were forbidden ecclesiastical burial since apostolic times.
The Catholic
Encyclopedia (1907):“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose
over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the
Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to
be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in
the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice
[oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is
to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”
St. John
Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly
must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their
own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart
this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
And it should be emphasized that no
Catholic should support any group or priest or individual who doesn’t publicly
state that he does not accept the idea that people can be saved without
baptism by “baptism of desire.”
Question 99- Is the Holy Ghost present when Cardinals elect a Pope?
I have enjoyed reading your Email exchanges. They have been very enlightening and informative. I have been taught during my Catholic Education that the Holy Ghost was present during the election of a Pope and guided the Cardinals in their choice. If that be the case, then how could the Popes since Pius XII have been so heretical? I would appreciate you thoughts.
Jack Bryant
Orlando, Florida
MHFM: No, the Holy Ghost doesn’t necessarily guide the Cardinals electing a Pope. The Holy Ghost protects the validly elected Pope from speaking error in his authoritative teaching capacity. The fact that the Holy Ghost doesn’t necessarily guide the Cardinals’ choice, but only the valid Pope’s authoritative teaching, is why there have been some very bad, yet valid, Popes.
Regarding the
post-Vatican II “elections,” it is a different case altogether. It is a different case since we are talking
about men who were not even validly elected by the Cardinals, due to heresy
prior to the election and the fact that Cardinal Siri was the man elected in
1958 whose election was unlawfully pushed aside, as much evidence
indicates. This illegal treatment of the
Pope-elect Cardinal Siri invalidated the subsequent “election” of John XXIII,
the man who began the Vatican II apostasy.
This means that the man who started the Vatican II religion was not even
validly chosen by the College of Cardinals.
This is why his authoritative teaching, and the authoritative teaching
of the subsequent Antipopes who came from this invalid line (Paul VI, John Paul
I, John Paul II), was not protected by the Holy Ghost from error. The Cardinal Siri Elections in Brief -
relating to the Papal Conclaves and Invalid Elections of John XXIII [1958] and
Paul VI [1963]
Question 98- How can I prove to someone
that Casti Connubii of Pius XI is infallible?
Greetings Brothers...
On Relevant Radio… A so called "Catholic" radio station..They were promoting NFP, I called the show and read them many of the statements made by Pope Pius 11th in Casti Connubii…I kept stating over and over on the show that NFP is the intention NOT TO HAVE A CHILD in which goes against the primary end, nature & purpose of marriage.. My question is: What would my answer be to people that state that Casti Connubbi is not infallible.
Steve
MHFM: Casti Connubii is an encyclical addressed to the entire Church. In this encyclical, Pius XI plainly states what the Faith of the Church is on Christian Marriage. When a Pope plainly and authoritatively states what the Faith of the Church is in an encyclical to the entire Church, that represents the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, to which a Catholic is bound. In addition, there is solemn language used by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubbii which constitutes a solemn, ex cathedra pronouncement. Note the bolded and underlined portions:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#’s 53-56), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Notice that Pope Pius XI here is stating in so many words that he is speaking from the Chair of Peter to bind the entire Church. He says that “the Catholic Church…raises her voice… and through Our mouth proclaims anew”. This is infallible, ex cathedra language; anyone who denies this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. This also serves to refute those many voices today who say things such as: “there have only been two infallible statements in Church history, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.” That is complete nonsense, of course; but one hears it quite frequently.
Question 97- Questions about materials on the Faith
and Zionist control?
Dear Sir,
I have been reading your web site with much interest. For a long time I have
been looking for information on the traditional Catholic faith, and I
believe I finally found a really serious web site on the subject. I would really be interested in any
literature you could provide me with or
information on traditional Catholicism, do you have any materials you could
send me on the Catholic Faith, its doctrines and the state of the church
scholarly booklets or materials?
Also are there any other web sites, organizations, or places you could direct
me to for further information on Traditional Catholicism? I am particularly
interested in your information regarding masonic conspiracies as this is
something I have been studying seriously for several years, I am interested as
well in zionist control of the US media etc. These are subjects most people are
very ignorant of in America today and I applaud you for speaking about them.
I am very interested in the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, and their
liturgies as well. Are there traditional true catholics and/or organizations
representing those rites and liturgical traditions today at the present time?
And do they have any web sites or associations you know of?
Sincerely,
Patrick C.
MHFM: With regard to many of your questions, I would recommend ordering all the tapes that we offer on our special offers order form, as well as our video/dvd on the New Mass and New Rite of Ordination. In addition to that, we encourage everyone to order and read the books: Preparation for Death by St. Alphonsus (abridged version); True Devotion to Mary and The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort; and Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh. There are many other important books, but those take priority, in our view. All of these books are available from Tan Books (1-800-437-5876). Regarding the Zionist or Jewish control of the media, if you want the information on that issue I would recommend the book The New Jerusalem by Michael Collins Piper, available at www.americanfreepress.net. It shows the profound extent of Jewish influence of the media and other aspects of life.
Question 96- What Pope said that non-Catholic
religions are the gates of hell?
Brother Dimond and fellow Monks;
I have enjoyed your writings and videos very much over the years. Please
keep up your good works.
However; I quoted the following to a fellow
parishoner,"Prostantism and other noncatholic religions are the Gates of
Hell" There was a Pope who said this but I could not remember His
name or the video in which the statement was made. Can You Help me?
Samuel G. Porter
MHFM: Actually, Popes have declared that “heretics”
are the gates of hell. We quoted this on
the “Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot be the Pope” video.
Pope
Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople,
553:
“…
we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the
gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”
Pope
St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:
“The
holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the
gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the
vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” (Denz. 351)
St.
Thomas Aquinas taught the same in his epistle to Pope Urban IV on the
publication of the Catena Aurea:
St.
Thomas Aquinas: “Thy heart, Most Holy Father, who art lawful heir of this Faith
and this Confession, gives watchful care that the light of this so wondrous
Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly
of heretics, fittingly referred to as
the gates of hell.” (The Sunday
Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. xxiii, xxiv.)
Along
the same lines, though perhaps not quite as precisely, St. Bede the Venerable
taught:
St.
Bede the Venerable: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The
gates of hell are evil doctrines, which by seducing the unwary drag them
down to hell.” (The Sunday Sermons of the
Great Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 274.)
The
fact that heretics are the gates of hell, as officially declared by Popes, is
something very important to understand.
When we correctly point out that heretics cannot be members of the
Church, and that the heretical Vatican II Antipopes cannot be true Popes, we
are not asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed against the
Church. It is just the opposite: those
who assert that the “Church” can be headed by a heretic and can teach evil
doctrines are asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed. The fact that heretics are the gates of hell
is precisely why all the Doctors of the Church who addressed the issue agree
that a manifest heretic could not be the Pope.
Question 95- Question about one of
Benedict XVI’s books?
Brothers,
I read with great interest you article on B16's 1982 book. I would like to read this book myself. I found this book at amazon.com
It has the same title but has a 1987 publication date. Is this the same book?
Thanks for your help! Terry
MHFM: Yes, the book “Principles of Catholic
Theology” by Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was originally published in 1982 in
German, but published by Ignatius Press in 1987. It has to be the single most heretical book
I’ve ever read in my life. It should
also be remembered that Ratzinger was the Prefect for the “Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith” when the book was published.
Question 94- Comment on Heresy of the
Week about Andre and Fulham
Brother Michael and
Brother Peter,
Thank you so much for finally exposing Bishop Fulham. It is really quite
amusing that he hung up on you when he wrote in another article on his website
that a certain cleric (un-named) had a problem with him and, instead of
"calling him on the phone and debating the issue", the cleric wrote a
criticism of him on his website. I told you before about my experience with
Sister Mary Michaela (Bishop Fulham's secretary). She hung up on me THREE
TIMES! When I called back after she hung up on me the first time, she denied
hanging up on me, saying that she had to take another call. When I asked her
why she didn't just put me on hold, she said that she didn't know how to do
that. She then proceeded to hang up on me again, and when I called again I got
the answering machine! Yes, she knew how to do that! Haha These people are of
totally bad will. They think they can live in their little world and disregard
the battle around them. All they apparently care about is ceremony. As a matter
of fact, when I tried to pin Sister down on whether or not JPII was a true pope
or not, she tried to stress the fact that that issue wasn't as important as
teaching my children the Catholic faith! In other words, what's one heresy
among friends, eh? Also, I found what
you wrote about Brother Andre Marie very interesting. I had no idea that he is
seeking ordination from Bishop Fulham. No wonder he has visited Spring Hill a
couple times. Brother Andre had written a paper that stated that independent
bishops hold no jurisdiction, yet he wants ordination from one! I have not
heard that he ever retracted his statement either.
Another thing about St. Benedict Center is the fact that they try to show that
they are in good standing in the Novus Ordo church by showing 2 documents on
their website from someone in authority that says that the dogma Outside the
Church There is No Salvation has been declared and definitive, but the
interpretation of the dogma can be problematical and it would seem that people who hold a strict interpretation should
be given as much leeway as those who hold more liberal views! I
wonder what Fr. Feeney would say about such a document. So much for everyone
being "One" in Faith, when you can interpret a defined dogma of the
Catholic Church any way you want to. God Bless!
Bridget
MHFM: The fact that Bro. Andre wrote
a paper stating that independent Bishops have no jurisdiction is very
interesting. It just illustrates again
what a complete schismatic and hypocrite he is.
Regarding the St. Benedict Center’s desire to profess communion with the
apostate Novus Ordo Bishops whom they know totally reject the necessity of the
Catholic Faith, it is simply disgusting.
Notice that they are attempting to show that their “interpretation” of
the dogma is tolerated by their Bishop, even though he doesn’t believe it
himself. In other words, “our Bishop doesn’t hold the salvation dogma,
but he says we are allowed to hold it, so we are in communion with him.” They are therefore admitting that they are in
communion with a man who rejects the salvation dogma. Unfortunately, they are complete phonies who
possess no love for God or the Catholic Faith.
And while they clamor for union with the apostate Bishop, at the same
time they pursue ordination from a Bishop outside Benedict XVI’s
hierarchy. Incredible!
Question
93- Follow up question on the SSPX’s schism?
Hello,
I was hoping you could answer this question a little
more detailed. For example, one
would not expect the SSPX to follow who they believed to be a valid Pope in any
particular directive that was not valid. So, not following the Pope in
this case would not be schismatic, would it? But, unless speaking 'ex
cathedra' or infallibly, the Pope is otherwise 'human' or potentially
erring. Are there any examples
that you can provide (does not have to be extensive) where the recent Popes
have pronounced infallibly (or have taught something already infallible) and
the SSPX has gone against the Pope on the same directive/teaching ? By the
way, I haven't read extensively into your website yet, so please forgive me if
you have already provided an explanation into this elsewhere.
- M from CT
MHFM: Canonizations of
Saints are definitely infallible and the declarations on Faith at a General
Council solemnly promulgated by the apostolic authority of a Pope are also
definitely infallible. The SSPX rejects
the “canonizations” of John Paul II and the teaching of Vatican II on Faith
that was solemnly promulgated by its “Pope,” Paul VI. (We have covered this in various articles on
our website.) This is definitely
heretical and schismatical on their part.
It is true that a Catholic could resist a bad decision of a Pope or a
Bishop. But that is not merely what we
are talking about with the SSPX; we are talking about solemn declarations by
their “Pope” which cannot be rejected.
Further, and this is a key point, we are talking about operating a
world-wide apostolate outside the authority of the Bishops and “Pope” it
recognizes. If the SSPX has to resist
the entire hierarchy of Novus Ordo Bishops and its “Pope” for a period of
decades over a matter of the Faith, then that hierarchy has fallen into
heresy and defected from the Faith. Such
a “hierarchy” cannot be recognized as Catholic.
But if it is not a matter of heresy and salvation which is the
cause of their separation for decades, then the SSPX has no right to
resist them, since in that case it is only a matter or preference or
nostalgia. The SSPX has repeatedly taught
that these are not matters of preference, but matters of fidelity to the
perennial teaching of the Magisterium and of resisting a “new religion.” Hence, they
are schismatic for obstinately recognizing the authority of these imposers of a
new religion, yet refusing to operate in communion with them. No matter which way one examines the issue,
the SSPX’s official position is schismatic.
There would never be a situation where a Catholic would be forced to
resist operating communion with the entire Catholic hierarchy for decades. If one is forced to resist operating
communion with such a group for decades, it is because that group has defected
from the Faith and holds no authority in the Catholic Church. Either Vatican II and the New Mass can be
accepted by a Catholic, and therefore there is no right to be independent of
the hierarchy which imposed them – or Vatican II and the New Mass cannot be
accepted by a Catholic because they cause the loss of salvation, and therefore
they could not have been imposed by the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IV, Council
of Trent, Sess. 22, Can. 7, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ex cathedra:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies,
vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration
of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 954)
The schismatic position of the SSPX is perhaps best illustrated by the
fact that they discourage people from attending the Indult Mass! Please consider this carefully: the Indult
Mass is celebrated according to the same 1962 Missal that the SSPX uses, the
only difference is that the Indult Mass is celebrated fully under the Novus
Ordo Bishop. Since the Indult Mass is
celebrated fully under the authority of the “Catholic” Bishop the SSPX
recognizes, the SSPX says one should not go!
Please consider how schismatic such a position is: in other words, if
you are fully under “the Church” they recognize as the Catholic Church you are
doing something that you should not do!
(And it needs to be said that the SSPX doesn’t officially hold as
invalid or doubtful the New Rite of Ordination – as proven by the fact that
“Fr.” Gregory Hesse, who was ordained in the New Rite, was specifically told by
the SSPX Bishops that he doesn’t need to be conditionally ordained. The SSPX has no clear position on that issue,
so one cannot claim that this is their sole reason for opposing attendance at
the Indult.) To state it again: the
Indult Mass is the same Missal that the SSPX uses, but the SSPX discourages
Catholics from attending it simply because it is fully under the aegis of the
Bishop they recognize as the Catholic Bishop.
This really encapsulates how schismatic their official position is. The same applies, of course, to many other
independent priests, including the obstinately schismatic Fr. James Wathen and
Fr. Gavin Bitzer. Fr. Wathen and Fr.
Bitzer will actually refuse Holy Communion to anyone who attends the
Indult Mass under their “Pope” and his “Bishop.” In all these cases, the schismatic position
is a direct result of the heretical position – recognizing manifest heretics
(the Novus Ordo Bishops and Vatican II Antipopes) as Catholics and inside the
Church.
Question 92 – Questions about Thuc line, no Mass, etc.?
hello brothers michael and peter… I think it might be especially hard for older people who were indoctrinated years ago that the pope and vatican were infallible and have to always be obeyed.do you agree? -some people have told me that the thuc line is invalid and not to have anything to do with any of the priests/bishops that came from that line…-i have been told by some people that there are no valid sacraments in the world since there are no valid priests in the world.is it true there are no sacraments possible because there are no valid priests because there is no valid pope with a valid vatican to assign them?-what is a person supposed to do if there is no valid church for them to go to and no valid priest for them either? how is a person supposed to keep holy sunday and other days? some people have asked me if there are no valid churches and masses around then what are they supposed to do?
Maureen Franco
MHFM: 1) A person must know his Faith. A person who learns his Faith will understand that he is faithful to the Papacy and the teaching of the Magisterium when he adheres to the unchanging dogmatic teaching of the Popes and Councils throughout history and rejects anything that contradicts them. If he knows these teachings, he will understand immediately that the Vatican II religion is a new gospel and a new religion which embraces false religions and teaches salvation outside the Church. Even a careful reading of the New Testament will inform a person that the Vatican II religion is not Catholic. This is precisely why all the educated Protestants make a mockery out of John Paul II for his endorsement of false and pagan religions. They can immediately see that the Vatican II “Popes” reject Christ as the only path to heaven. The problem with a person such as you described – and there are many like him out there – is that he doesn’t care enough to learn about the Catholic Faith and so is led astray through his own lack of interest.
2) The Thuc line is as valid as any line there is. That is not to address the theological positions held by all of these priests, however. 3) There are valid priests today. The fact that there is no Pope has no bearing on the validity, which is determined by whether the traditional rites of the Church were used. The problem is that there are almost no fully Catholic priests today. 4) If there is no acceptable traditional Mass available for you or within a reasonable distance then there is no obligation to go. In that case, you keep Sunday holy by praying the Rosary (which people should do each day, of course), preferably the entire 15 decades.
Question 91 – Can a person ever receive baptism
validly without receiving the remission of original sin?
Dear Brother Peter,
I sent you and Br. Michael an
email in January concerning a question I asked regarding the SSPX and a
theological opinion they have propagated concerning the mark of Baptism and
Original Sin existing simultaneously in the soul. It has been over 4 months with only a
"please wait" response from you. I am not looking for any
explanation on this question, only a "yes" or "no"
answer. I again ask the question: Do you (and Br. Michael) believe
that Original Sin can be present in the soul simultaneously with the mark
of a valid Baptism?
Please respond. Thank you !
Patrick Horwath
MHFM: This is a finer theological point. The answer to your question is yes. The
Church teaches that a heretic can be validly baptized if he is baptized with
water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But if
a person is baptized as a heretic – for instance, if he rejects the dogma
Outside the Church there is No Salvation, as Benedict XVI does – then his
baptism, though valid, would confer no grace.
His heresy is an impediment to him receiving the grace of baptism. He receives the character or the mark of
baptism validly but does not receive the grace of baptism and doesn’t have his
sins remitted and he is not justified, since he is outside the church. Outside the Church there is no remission of
sins.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam,
Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are
forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that,
apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation
nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and
proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation
are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.
This is the express teaching of Pope St. Gregory the
Great.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Quia charitati, June 22, 601: “From the
ancient institution of the Fathers we have learned that those who are baptized
in the name of the Trinity, although amid heresy, whenever they return to holy
Church, may be recalled to the bosom of their mother the Church either with the
anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or with a profession of faith
alone…because the holy baptism, which
they received among the heretics, at that time restores the power of cleansing
in them when they have been united to the holy faith and the heart of the
universal Church.” (Denz. 249)
Here we see Pope Gregory the Great explaining that
those baptized as heretics are not cleansed, i.e., their sins are not
remitted. They are not cleansed by the
baptism they received among the heretics until they remove the heresy and are
united to the true Faith. The baptism
they received is valid; they don’t need to be rebaptized, but it is not efficacious
for them until they remove the heresy.
At that point, they become justified by the power of the baptism already
received. We also see this principle
illustrated in Sess. 7 of the Council of Trent on the Sacraments in General:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7 on the
Sacraments in General, Can. 6.: “If
anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace
which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who do
not place an obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward
signs of grace and justice… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 849)
Here we see that the sacraments do not confer the
grace which they signify on those who place an obstacle in the way, such as
heresy. The above is also the teaching of
Doctors of the Church. And this teaching
does not contradict any of the other definitions of Trent, of course, such as
in Sess. 5 on Original Sin:
Pope Paul III, Council of
Trent, Session 5:
"If anyone denies that by the grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original
sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the
true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is
only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema."
(Denz. 792)
Notice that this anathematizes anyone who says that
original sin is not remitted “by the
grace” conferred in baptism.
Whenever grace is conferred in baptism original sin is infallibly
remitted, such as with the baptism of infants or anyone else who doesn’t place
an obstacle to receiving the grace in the way.
But, in the case described above of a baptism of a heretic, no grace is
conferred at all and thus original sin is not remitted. Hence, we can see that the clause “by the
grace” is very important and shows the infallibility of dogmatic definitions
and the protection of the Holy Ghost over the teaching of the Church.
Question 90
– Bob S. on “or” vs. “and” in the Council of Trent?
MHFM:
In a recent Q and A about Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent
(relating to baptism of desire issue), Bob. S. tells people that Trent teaches
baptism of desire and that it is false to assert that “or” can have a meaning
that is equivalent to “and” in a Council.
Here is the question and his response:
[Question to Bob. S.] Dear Robert S, Thanks for your
response. However, I already demonstrated the use of the word "or"
when it acts like an "and" when I wrote the sentence about cars.
Here's that sentence from my email to you: Just
like your car won't work without oil or gas. Both oil and gas are necessary
to operate a car.
R. Sungenis: Nice try, but using "or" when
you mean "and" is bad grammar. The Council of Trent doesn't speak
like a southern American. I suggest you examine the way Trent used the word "or"
throughout its declarations. You won't find one time that "or" means
"and."
MHFM:
First, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the
Council of Trent doesn’t teach baptism of desire. For a full discussion of this passage,
including an interesting e-mail from a Latin scholar which directly refutes the
claim above, click here: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No
Salvation, and then scroll to section 16,
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent and click on it.
Second,
I guess Mr. Sungenis didn’t read our book, for we showed that a text of the
Council of Florence used the word “or” in a context that clearly renders its
meaning as “and.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes
and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only
pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and
schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the
Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do
the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and
other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of
eternal rewards; and that nobody can be
saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed
blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of
the Catholic Church.”
Here
we see this Latin version of the Council of Florence using the word “or”
(Latin: aut) to have a meaning that
is clearly equivalent to “and.” (The
Latin is quoted in the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed &
Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 578. Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils cites Acta
sacri oecumenici councilii Florentini, Rome 1638). The text declares that
not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and
schismatics cannot be saved. Does this
mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and
none of the heretics can be saved. Thus,
this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”
Similarly,
in the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council of Trent
strictly forbids anyone to “believe, preach or teach” (credere,
praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in
the decree on Justification.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6,
Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe,
preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present
decree.”
Does
“or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach
contrary to the Council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to
teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or”
(aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just
like in Sess. 6, chapter 4 (see below) “or” means that justification
cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to
mean “and” (or “both”) in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on
Communion under both species (Denz. 931).
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap.
2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which
may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of
the Church.”
Does
aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be
repudiated, but it may be changed? No,
obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are
forbidden. This is another example of
how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning
“and” or “both.” And these examples, when we consider the wording of the
passage [of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent], refute the claim of baptism of desire
supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which
favors baptism of desire. To say
that Justification cannot take
place without baptism or the
desire for it is not to say that justification can take place by
water baptism or the desire for it. Just like if I say: “a sacrament cannot
take place without matter or form” – which means that both are needed – does
not mean that a sacrament can take place with either matter or form. And that is why, in the very same sentence,
the Council of Trent proceeds to declare: as
it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost
he cannot enter into the Kingdom God (John 3:5).
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap.
4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the
impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as
a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God
through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once
the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT
TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless
a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God (John 3:5).”
Baptism
of desire means that John 3:5 is not as it is written, that it is not necessary
for every man to be born again of water, which contradicts that very sentence
of Trent! And this is why in every single instance it dealt with John 3:5, the
Council of Trent authoritatively declared John 3:5 is to be understood as it is
written: there are no exceptions to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for
salvation. By the way, Mr. Sungenis also
consistently uses the false translation of “except through” instead of “without”
almost every time he quotes Sess. 6, Chap. 4.
This is pathetically dishonest.
But what do you expect from a heretic like him, who indicated to a
Protestant who was attacking the Catholic Faith that he was not a heretic
because of “invincible ignorance”!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on
the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If
anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary
for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On
Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and
by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what
they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on
the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “If
anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and
on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Question 89 – How can the SSPX be in
schism for not being under an Antipope?
If Benedict XVI
is an antipope, how can the SSPX be in schism for not operating under him?
MHFM: Allow me to give an example. It is the Church’s law that Catholics are
forbidden to eat meat on Fridays under pain of mortal sin. Suppose a man wakes up one day and thinks
it’s Friday. He says to himself “I don’t
care about the Church’s law I’m going to eat meat today,” and then proceeds to
eat meat. He then goes to work and
discovers that it isn’t Friday, but actually it is Thursday. It doesn’t matter; he is still guilty of
mortal sin because in his conscience he thought it was Friday and deliberately
ate meat anyway.
Likewise, the SSPX obstinately
professes that Benedict XVI is the Pope after thirty years of evaluating the
Vatican II apostasy which he now heads.
They profess that the Novus Ordo Bishops in communion with him are the
hierarchy. Yet, they refuse to operate
under them. They are obstinately
schismatic at this point. The fact that Benedict XVI is undoubtedly an Antipope
and the Novus Ordo Bishops a false hierarchy doesn’t change their guilt in the
same way that the man who discovered it was Thursday was still guilty for
eating meat because he thought it was Friday.
Question 88 – Question about Benedict XVI and a note on one of his
heresies
Hi, I read your "30 astonishing heresies", and I was amazed at what I read! And in the article Benedict XVI was labeled an antipope. My question - when do you think that he'll be deposed?
Thank you,
Dru
MHFM: He has
already been “deposed.” He was “deposed”
in advance, if you will. The fact that
he is not even remotely Catholic excluded him from being validly elected at all
in the first place.
Pope Paul IV, Bull
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our
Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine,
decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any
Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any
Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any
legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as
Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into
some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and
by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and
without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour,
title, authority, office and power…. If anyone, however, should presume to
attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty
God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.
By the way, we’ve added some more context to the first
heresy covered in that article, since it is such an important heresy. If you run into anyone defending Antipope
Benedict XVI, just copy this heresy for him.
It is totally devastating to any claim that he is a Catholic.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1982), pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities
that are open to Christian ecumenism.
The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder
are immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum
demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in
the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in
practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On
the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the
1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a
primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the
Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church
would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally
invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism; the maximum
demand of Protestants, on the other hand, would be that the Catholic Church
accept, along with the unconditional acknowledgement of all Protestant
ministries, the Protestant concept of ministry and their understanding of the
Church and thus, in practice, renounce the apostolic and sacramental structure
of the Church, which would mean, in practice, the conversion of Catholics to
Protestantism and their acceptance of a multiplicity of distinct community
structures as the historical form of the Church. While the first three maximum demands are today rather unanimously
rejected by Christian consciousness, the fourth exercises a kind of
fascination for it – as it were, a certain conclusiveness that makes it appear
to be the real solution to the problem.
This is all the more true since there is joined to it the expectation
that a Parliament of Churches, a ‘truly ecumenical council’, could then
harmonize this pluralism and promote a Christian unity of action. That no real union would result from this,
but that its very impossibility would become a single common dogma, should
convince anyone who examines the suggestion closely that such a way would not
bring Church unity but only a final renunciation of it. As a result, none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”
I
quoted the entire passage without a break so that people can see that this is
not being taken out of context in any way.
Ratzinger specifically mentions, and
then bluntly rejects, the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church that
the Protestants and Eastern Schismatics must be converted (and accept Vatican
I: “the full scope of the definition of 1870”).
He specifically rejects it as the way to unity. This is totally heretical and it proves that
he is a complete non-Catholic heretic.
Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10), Jan.
6, 1928:
“…
the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to
the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…”
Question 87
– Question about what it means to say people profess “communion” with someone?
When
you say that groups profess communion with someone what do you mean?
K.
MHFM: When we say that groups profess “communion” with someone
we mean that they recognize him as a fellow member of the Catholic Church. For instance, when we say that the Society of
St. Pius X professes communion with Benedict XVI by recognizing him as the Pope
– even though the SSPX refuses to operate under his hierarchy – this means that
they hold him to be in the same Church
and as one who holds the same Faith.
They profess to be in union with him (communion) in the Church of Jesus
Christ. Likewise, when we say that the
St. Benedict Center, for example, recognizes the apostate Novus Ordo Bishops as
the Catholic Bishops (which is a fact), we correctly point out that they
profess communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy. They profess to be in the same Church as the
Novus Ordo apostate Bishops. By professing
communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, they hold that the Novus Ordo Bishops are
part of the same Church and have the same Faith as they have.
Pope
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 10), June
29, 1896:
“For
this reason, as the unity of the
faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as
it is the body of the faithful, so also
for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society,
unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino [by
divine law].”
This is
important to understand. When you
encounter people who refuse to take the sedevacantist position, you often ask
them: “okay, so then you have the same Faith as Benedict XVI,” and they often
respond: “no.” They say: “he’s the Pope,
but I don’t have the same Faith as he does.”
This is totally heretical; it is a denial of the unity of the Church; it
is a denial of the unity of Faith in the Church; and it is a denial of the
unity of communion in the Church. If
Benedict XVI is your “Pope” that means that you hold that he has the same
Faith. There is no way around that. If you admit that he doesn’t have your Faith
then you are admitting that he is not the Pope.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June
29, 1943:
“As therefore in the true Christian community there
is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the
Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a
publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or
government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they
be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Question 86
– Question about a traditionalist bishop?
Dear
MHFM,
I am wondering if you have heard of a Bishop Francis Slupski, CSSR? I
will be traveling to Illinois this summer and heard that he resides at Regina
Caeli Chapel in Rockford. The only information I can find about him is
that he was consecrated by Bishop McKenna in 1999. Since there is no
information about his ordination, I am trying to determine whether he was even
validly ordained, and whether or not he embraces the same heretical positions
as Bishop McKenna. I am quite concerned about this, as I may be moving to
this area and want to find out what I will be getting in to. Thank you
for your help, and may God reward you for your dedicated work!
In Christ,
Joseph Smith
New York, NY
MHFM: Yes, we’ve
heard of him. As far as we know he is a
validly ordained priest (ordained about 50 years ago in Poland, I believe). We
also believe that he is a validly consecrated Bishop. One of us called him a few years ago and
attempted to charitably discuss some of these issues. As soon as he heard who it was he immediately
hung up the telephone. There is only one
word for this: coward. He probably holds
heretical positions or accepts those who do, but, of course, we didn’t get a
chance to ask him about what he believes for the reason described above.
Question 85 – Question about indefectibility, Papal
Election?
I have been reading your website
and troubling questions came to my mind. If no priest ordained in the new
rite is valid, and all these novus ordo bishops and cardinals are
heretics; then who could possibly validly elect a Pope? This is very disturbing
to me because this almost seems as if the Catholic Church is dead. Who is left
to carry on with ordinations, sacraments, and papal elections? Even if there
were a few bishops and priests that kept the faith, how could we find them and
follow them? How would we know? This is so terribly sad. What I have read at
your website makes much sense, but I am not sure where to turn if you are
right. Thank you so much for your time
and effort, and for all you are doing.
David Rybarczyk
MHFM:
First, you recognize whether one has kept the Faith by determining whether his
teaching is in line with the infallible teaching of the Catholic
Magisterium. Second, regarding Papal
Elections, before the College of Cardinals was created in the 12th
century the Pope was elected by the clergy and faithful of Rome. This means that a Papal Election by the College of Cardinals is a disciplinary measure
that is not inextricably bound up with the election of a Pope. Theoretically, if a major catastrophe wiped
out the entire population of Rome including the entire College of Cardinals and
Novus Ordo functionaries, leaving only some true Traditional Catholics and
Traditional priests, a true Pope could be elected in Rome by a few remaining faithful
and some fully Traditional Catholic clergy.
That, of course, would be a miraculous and extraordinary event; but it
is a possible way for a future Pope to be elected. However, in my opinion, there doesn’t have to
be another Pope before the Second Coming of Christ.
Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards
the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.”
(Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.)
Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh
(1417-1487):
“The Church will be punished
because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The
Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be
extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously
exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
Third, you say that it seems as if the Catholic Church
is dead. The fact is that it is
predicted that, at the very end just before the Second Coming of Christ, the Catholic
Church will be almost dead. The Church was almost overwhelmed by Arianism
in the 4th Century. If the
final crisis is to be ever worse, then we can see that what we are dealing with
is not unthinkable or impossible. The
Church can and will never die; it will remain until the end of time. The gates of hell will not prevail; but it is
predicted that at the very end it will be such a crisis that the Church will be
reduced so much so that it has almost died.
That is why Christ asked if there would be any faith at all when He
returned; and that is why Our Lady prophesied that the Church “will be in
eclipse” – almost completely blocked out of view, except for a tiny remnant.
Our
Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome
will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist… the Church will be
in eclipse… Who will be the victor if God does not shorten the length of
the test?... It is time; the sun is darkening; only faith will survive.”
Luke 18:8 “But yet the Son of
man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”
Regarding your question about ordinations, there is at
least one fully Catholic priest in the country today. The fact of the matter is if the Vatican II
sect is the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church is definitely dead –
which, of course, we know is not true.
The Vatican II sect rejects the entire Catholic Faith and the entire
Gospel. Even the current head of the
Vatican II sect fully admits that the solemn teaching of Vatican II
specifically rejects the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium on religious
liberty and other religions. He admits
that Vatican II’s teaching is a “countersyllabus” to Pope Pius IX’s
authoritative Syllabus of Errors.
“Cardinal”
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic
Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it
is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document,
Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the
texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the
Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church
under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new
phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central
Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should
exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after
1789."
“Cardinal”
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic
Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus
gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the
former one."
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: "The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage
Anyone with an ounce of faith can easily recognize
that the religion of the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic religion and that
those who embrace it and the New Mass have left the Catholic Church, leaving
the Church to consist of those who continue to adhere to the unchanging
Catholic Faith without any compromise or dilution.
Question 84
– Question about a “traditional” priest?
Hello
Thank you for your informative website. I have
question: have you heard of Father Patrick Perez? Is he a sedevacantist? Thank
you very much.
J.S.
MHFM:
“Fr.” Perez is not a sedevacantist.
He is an independent “priest” who recognizes the Vatican II apostate hierarchy,
but yet remains completely independent of them, just like the SSPX. This, as our material has pointed out, is a
schismatic and untenable position. Some
months back Perez bolted a picture of John Paul II back up at his church! Perez was also ordained by a Bishop who was
made a Bishop in the New Rite of Consecration, which is doubtfully valid. This means that Perez cannot be considered a
validly ordained priest. Perez also
denies the dogma that only baptized Catholics can be saved and attacks those
who hold to it. He is an evil heretic and a complete schismatic who, if he
recognizes the Vatican II Antipopes and their Bishops, must be in communion
with them, which he is not. Perez was
mentioned, along with the heretic Dr. Droleskey, in our article entitled
“Various heresies from the false traditionalists in The Remnant” in the Beware
section of our website. Here are a few
excerpts in which we see their profound hypocrisy:
The Heretics Dr. Thomas Droleskey and
“Fr.” Patrick Perez
Thomas
Droleskey used to be one of those “neo-Catholics” The Remnant now criticizes.
Now, after years of admitted blindness, Droleskey has come to the “full
side” of “tradition.” After years of
obstinate blindness and defense of the apostasy, he is now telling us all about
it and what we should think of it. In
the recent issue of The Remnant, he
writes an article called “Do Not Lay Hands on a Man Rashly: The Problem with
Homemade Priests and Do-It-Yourself Bishops.”
He is criticizing independent Bishops who are consecrated independently
of the John Paul II hierarchy. You see,
Droleskey and the heretics at The Remnant
want to keep people in union with the apostate, Christ-denying,
Council-of-Trent-denying, Council-of-Florence-denying, and Papacy-denying
Bishops of the Vatican II sect – EXCEPT
WHEN IT COMES TO THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X!
In
his article, Droleskey chastises an independent priest named Fr. Fama because
Fr. Fama got ordained and consecrated by an independent Bishop who had Old
Catholic roots. When Fr. Fama was
ordained and consecrated by this independent Bishop, the Bishop professed to be
Roman Catholic, not Old Catholic. (I’m
not asserting that Fr. Fama or the Bishop who consecrated him are true
Catholics; that is beside the point).
The point is that the heretic Droleskey does not hesitate to indicate
that Fama is not a Catholic, but a schismatic on the road to hell.
Thomas Droleskey, The
Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “One who commits such a schismatic act can
be absolved of his excommunicable offense only by the Holy See. 7) The mere fact that one does not intend to
commit a schismatic act does not take away the fact of such an act… One can
no sooner absolve oneself of the effects of a schismatic act than one can
presume to be ‘saved’ by making a profession of faith in his heart and on his
lips in the Lord Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.”
So,
we see that Droleskey is playing hardball with Fr. Fama. Fr. Fama is a schismatic, according to him,
even if he didn’t intend to be. He is no
more a Catholic than one can be saved by faith alone, according to
Droleskey.
After
discovering that Fr. Fama is a “schismatic,” Droleskey was quick to inform his
heretical friend, “Fr.” Patrick Perez, who was “ordained” by a “Bishop” who was
made a “Bishop” in Paul VI’s basically Protestant, 1968 Rite. “Fr.”
Perez, who recently bolted a picture of John Paul II back up at his church
(as dutifully reported by Droleskey in a past issue of The Remnant), made sure to
remove the “schismatic” Fr. Fama from any cooperation at his church, as soon as
Droleskey gave him the news. The
heretic Droleskey continued his diatribe against Fr. Fama by quoting a letter
written by Perez to Fama:
“Fr.” Patrick Perez, quoted by Droleskey, in The Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “…the
spurious and probably invalid but
certainly illicit and unwarranted consecrations allegedly done by Archbishop
Thuc of Vietnam in his dotage. As
far as I can tell no condition exists in
the Church, in spite of all the problems and confusion caused by Vatican II
and the Novus Ordo Missae, which could
possibly justify such an act.”
Here
we see Perez and Droleskey (by endorsement) now vehemently denouncing the
Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Thuc as probably invalid and certainly
illicit. And here is where the snakes
rear their ugly, lying heads:
“Fr.” Patrick Perez, quoted by Thomas Droleskey, The Remnant, August 31, 2004, p. 15: “Certainly no comparison can be made to the
consecrations of the bishops done by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, which conferred
no jurisdiction and were done solely out of necessity after due deliberation
and negotiation with Rome, to provide for the continuation of the traditional
episcopate in a state of emergency in a church gone mad.”
This,
ladies and gentlemen, is an abomination.
All of a sudden, hardball is out
the window. Illicit, independent,
definitely “schismatic” acts now become justified, when it comes to the Society
of St. Pius X! Perez and Droleskey
justify the independent Episcopal Consecrations of Bishop Lefebvre, while they
condemn Fr. Fama as definitely a schismatic, and they condemn Thuc’s
consecrations as certainly illicit. This
is totally intellectually dishonest, totally inconsistent, and it demonstrates
why the heretic Droleskey was blinded for so long (and still is so
blinded).
Lefebvre’s
consecrations were made in direct violation of the Vatican’s order, to service
a growing apostolate operating completely independently of John Paul II’s
hierarchy, and which even discouraged (and still discourages) people from
attending the “Indult Masses” in communion with John Paul II’s hierarchy. Lefebvre and his Bishops were excommunicated
by the Vatican within 72 hours of the consecrations, and with the full approval
of John Paul II, Droleskey’s “Pope.” If
Bishop Thuc’s consecrations were “certainly illicit,” then so were
Lefebvre’s. Moreover, most of the
Bishops consecrated by Thuc made the same claims as Lefebvre with regard to
jurisdiction (they claimed no territory), the state of necessity, and preservation
of the Latin Mass – and with a much more consistent rationale. And, of course, neither Droleskey nor Perez
mentions the SSPX’s rejection of John Paul II’s “Canonizations” (a clearly
schismatic act)… In Droleskey’s article, we also find the following passage
from Perez’s letter to Fr. Fama (wherein Perez is chastising Fr. Fama and
dismissing him from communion with him):
“Fr.” Patrick Perez to Fr. Fama, quoted by Droleskey
in The Remnant, Aug. 31, 2004, p. 15:
“I am truly sorry to have to do this, but I feel that I have no other
choice. You know how I labor to keep Our
Lady Help of Christians free from the excesses that plague the traditional
movement. Daily do I battle with the Feeneyites and those afflicted with
Jansenism, not to mention my constant
preaching against the errors of the Sedevacantists and the uncharitable
people who would question even St. Peter’s ordination if they could.”
So,
the heretic “Fr.” Patrick Perez, whose letter is quoted by the apostate
Droleskey, does daily battle with the Sedevacantists and the “Feeneyites”
(those who believe that one must be a baptized Catholic to be saved). Droleskey obviously agrees with, or at least
accepts as activity consistent with the Catholic Faith, Perez’s “daily battle”
with the “Feeneyites.” But get this:
Droleskey was invited to, and spoke at, the 2004 St. Joseph’s Forum Conference
– a Conference which features numerous “Feeneyites” and which is organized by
those who claim to agree with the “Feeneyites”!
So, a “traditional Catholic” Conference which is run by “Feeneyite”
supporters features a speaker who publicly attacks them by endorsing the views
of his good friend (Perez) who does daily battle with them! What more can be said about these heretics? This incident simply corroborates what is
stated above about these false traditionalists caring nothing for schism or
heresy, as long as they agree on the Latin Mass and that the Vatican II
Antipopes are true Popes.
Further,
take a look at the Photo Gallery on our website, “Antipope John Paul II’s
Schism with the Schismatics”. Droleskey and his apostate friends at The Remnant are certainly aware that
John Paul II’s Vatican has rejected the conversion of the Schismatics – a blatantly
schismatical and heretical act. Yet,
these heretics at The Remnant
denounce those people who are not in union with this blatant schismatic (John
Paul II), who says that we should not convert schismatics! These heretics are spiritually as blind as
bats. They are saying that: If you are not in union with people who
think schism is meaningless, you are a schismatic and definitely going to Hell,
even if you didn’t intend to be schismatic! Think about how evil this is! What spiritual fools, what hypocrites.
I
will close with this: In a May 8 article called “The Consecration Has Been
Done?,” Thomas Droleskey discusses the recent statement by the Executive
Secretary of the Russian Conference of Catholic Bishops Igor Kovalevsky. Kovalevsky, as documented in our Heresy of
the Week Archive for 5/14/04, stated that the “Holy See” has officially
instructed that the Orthodox are not to be converted to Catholicism. Dr. Droleskey, who writes for Catholic Family News and The Remnant, admits that this is apostasy.
Dr. Droleskey, The Consecration Has Been Done, May 9:
“Let's be brutally frank: to assert that the Catholic Church is not interested
in the conversion of souls from Orthodoxy to Catholicism is to assert a belief
that is alien to Catholic truth and representative of the sort of syncretist,
pan-Christianity specifically condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos
in 1928…. Please tell me how not
seeking the conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith is not apostasy…
the statement of the executive secretary of the Catholic bishops' conference in
Russia proves that the Vatican has no interest--and I mean no interest--in the
conversion of Russia whatsoever.”
But
the blind heretic Droleskey fails to see that he is in union with this apostasy
and this schism. He is denouncing people
as schismatics for not operating in union with this apostasy and this schism,
while at the same time he justifies the true schism of the SSPX. These are the heretics shaping the minds of
many of the traditionalists. If you are
independent of the hierarchy of the blatant schismatic John Paul II or Benedict
XVI, you are a schismatic on the road to Hell – unless you belong to the
Society of St. Pius X, of course, who are our good friends and for whom schism
is okay.
Question 83 – Question about Cremation
and Opus Dei?
Dear Brothers
Dimond,
Thank you for
your excellent article on the heresies of Ratzinger. It has the
unmistakable ring of truth, unlike the gobbeldy-gook the apostates in the
Vatican have been dishing up! The truth is simple -- and is not
optional! I have heard that St. Benedict himself prophesied that his
order would be instrumental in leading the fight against the great apostasy of
the end times.
I wonder if
you could address two subjects for me? One is cremation, which seems to
be so much in vogue these days. The Vatican 2 sect apparently has
approved it, and most nominal Catholics don't even know that it is forbidden by
the Catholic Church. Where is the teaching on this, so that I can direct
people to it? Also, Opus Dei. I know that it was condemned by
the true popes when it first surfaced (and of course, now Escriva has been
canonized!), but I would like to be able to tell some family members why.
My uncle died recently and we found that he left half his estate to Opus Dei.
We tried, but were unsuccessful in steering him away from this cult. God bless
you for all you do, and may he give you strength!
M.M.
MHFM: Yes, the Vatican II sect allows cremation.
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 means that cremation is allowed. This is a very serious issue because the
teaching of the Catholic Church, as reflected by 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 means that those who requested
their own cremation and died without repentance are presumed damned.
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.”
This issue is a prime example of
how the Vatican II sect and its Antipopes, by their false teaching, are leading
souls to hell. It shows us why
recognizing the truth of the present sedevacantist position is so crucial. We know “traditionalists” who, because they
maintained a heretical position in accepting that Antipope John Paul II was the
Pope, carried out their mother’s cremation and sinned mortally.
Regarding your question about
Opus Dei and Josemaria Escriva, it is covered briefly in newletter #4 on our
website. Josemaria Escriva, who was a
heretic, was not truly canonized since Antipope John Paul II had no authority
to canonize anyone.
Question 82 – Question about “Pope” Joan, Apparitions and Our Lady?
…was there a female pope (pope Joan) who went by a
male name, who was thought by the faithful to have been male until later
discovered upon her death, that she was indeed female? These questions
are very important to me because I was raised Catholic but I quess I am not a
Catholic anymore because I don't know anything for sure about what it means to
be Catholic, and I can't lie to God about this truth that I look at the history
made available to me from all sources, and it seems that the gates of hell have
been swinging wide open here and there a lot throughout history, and God knows
I seek him, his truth, the only truth. Thanks for your help. I
don't expect you to be yoked with me because I am not a practicing Catholic,
and it appears that the only Catholic Churches I know of within a 100 mile radius
of where I live are vatican two camps. Again thanks for any feedback you
may have for me. Also, some of the questions regarding Mary and your response
to them are very confusing. You say that Mary is not co redemtrix, yet
didn't she say this about herself at fatima or some other apparition approved
by the church? Since vatican two is bogus, can they approve apparitions,
mystics, seers etc., or beatify or do anything with the authority of Jesus?
Thanks.
Theresa of Kentucky
MHFM: First, there
was never a female "Pope" Joan. That is a myth.
Second, you need to become a practicing Catholic for
the salvation of your soul! Begin by praying the Rosary each day. I
would also recommend that you begin reading good, traditional, spiritual books,
such as lives of the Saints. Many of those are available from Tan Books:
1-800-437-5876. I would also recommend that you order our seven video/dvd
special for $15.00.
I assume you have been validly baptized. The
profession of Faith from the Council of Trent near the bottom of our website
contains the abjuration and profession that baptized converts make. After
you make that, you would need to confess all of your unconfessed mortal sins to
a validly ordained priest, who was ordained in the traditional rite of
ordination. You would need to inform yourself about what is happening
vis-a-vis the Vatican II sect, and be convinced of all the fully Catholic
positions in that area: that only those who die as baptized Catholics can be
saved, etc.
Third, Our Lady did not say that she was the
Co-Redeemer at Fatima or in any other traditional apparition.
Fourth, the Vatican II sect has no authority to do
anything. Its approval of apparitions holds no weight. Almost all
the modern apparitions allegedly of Our Lady are deceptions from the devil, as
is proven by the content of their messages. Medjugorje and Bayside
immediately come to mind, whose messages blatantly contradict Catholic
dogma. They are meant to
confuse, distract and mislead people into accepting the Vatican II sect in one
way or another. For instance, the Message of Bayside is a false message
which tells people to stay in the New Mass and that John Paul II was a true
Pope but a "weak one”; and it tries to deceive people and lure them in by
also promoting devotion to Our Lady, etc.
Question 81
– Question about St. Catherine’s statement accepting the devil as the Pope?
Dear
Brothers,
Hello
again, I want to first and foremost state that I understand and agree with your
writings that a heretic cannot be the Pope, but I have read something that to
me seems to say otherwise. I am not supporting nor am I agreeing
necessarily with what this books says; I just wanted to see what you both
thought of it. Here is the quote from the book Credo, Foundations of Faith…
Pg.
31-32 "Catherine of Sienna, declared a Saint even at her funeral by Urban
VI and named a Doctor of the Church by Pope Paul VI, declares that: 'Even if
the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not raise up our heads against him, but
calmly lie down to rest on his bosom...I tell you that God wills and has
commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors of the Church, and
Christ-on-earth were devils incarnate, it is fitting that we be obedient and
subject to them.' "
MHFM: First, the quote
is taken out of its historical context and misapplied to a totally different
situation. St. Catherine is speaking in
the context of people who were refusing obedience to the validly elected Pope,
Urban VI, because they didn’t like his demeanor and his way of dealing with
people. They found him to be too harsh
and so found a “Pope” more to their liking.
This initiated the Great Western Schism.
In that context, St. Catherine is basically saying: no matter what his
shortcomings are, even if he is the devil himself, he is the validly elected
Pope and we must submit to him. She is
not addressing the issue of whether a manifest heretic can be the Pope. Urban VI was not a heretic.
Second, St.
Catherine of Siena is not infallible; she isn’t even a Doctor of the
Church. (She was invalidly declared a
Doctor of the Church by Antipope Paul VI).
Even if she had said, “I would accept a heretic as the Pope” (which she never did) then she would
have simply been wrong, since it is a dogmatic fact (rooted in the defined
dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Church) that a heretic cannot be
the Pope. I don’t care if an “angel”
allegedly from heaven comes down and tells me that a heretic is the Pope, since
I know by divine faith that a heretic cannot be Pope.
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.”
St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is
proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic
is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul
(Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that
is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And
this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from
the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves
and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."
St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 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."
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The
Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans
but also Jews or heretics and
schismatics…”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29,
1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can
share in his authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS
OUTSIDE CAN COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”
Question 80 – The idea that a heretic
cannot be Pope is condemned by the Council of Constance?
"… the formal decree of the
Council of Constance under Pope Martin V who, thirty-five years later, was to
condemn the British heretic, John Wycliffe, for holding that: 'if the Pope were
foreknown [as damned] and evil, and consequently a member of the Devil, he does
not have power over the faithful.' Censured as well were the errors of
the Bohemain priest, Jan Hus, who wrote: 'If the Pope is wicked and especially
if he be foreknown, then, like Judas, he is of the Devil, a thief and a son of
perdition, and he is not head of the holy militant Church since he is not a
member of it.' This Ecumenical Council then had Wycliffe's dead body
disinterred, cast out of consecrated ground, and his writings burnt; Hus was
burned alive at the stake for his heresies - a fitting tribute to the Spirit of
Truth, 'Who wills,' as Pope Leo X declared, 'that heretics be burned at the
stake.'" To me it seems that those
who said that one who is "foreknown and evil", I assume that to be a
heretic, cannot be the Pope were condemned by the Council of
Constance. Did I understand that incorrectly? Hope you can help.
Robert
MHFM: The misinterpretation of this passage is a
common mistake by non-sedevacantists.
Council of Constance, Errors of John
Hus: “#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." (Denz. 646) - Condemned
Based on this passage, they erroneously conclude that
the argument of sedevacantists (that a Pope who becomes a heretic loses his
office and ceases to be head of the Church since he is not a member of it) is
condemned. But the Council of Constance is not condemning that at all; it
is not asserting anything one way or the other in that regard. Rather, it is condemning the entire proposition
as such, which asserts that because a Pope is wicked (or
immoral) he is not the head of the Church since he is not a member of it. And this is false: just because a Pope is
wicked does not mean that he is not a member of the Church and therefore he is
not the head of the Church.
Sedevacantists, on the other hand, correctly point out that a heretical
pope (not merely a wicked one) is not a member of the Church and therefore
cannot be the head of the Church (and thus he loses his office automatically
when he becomes a heretic). This is the
teaching of the Church.
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.” (Denz. 423)
St. Francis De Sales (17th
century), Doctor of the Church: "Thus we do not say that the Pope
cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a
heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a
heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."
(The Catholic Controversy, Tan Books,
pp. 305-306)
The point above is further proven when we consider the
fact that one of John Hus’s heresies was that none of the wicked are members
of the Church. Hus is condemned for that
over and over again. For instance, he is
condemned for teaching that none of the wicked are part of the Church in #3
(Denz. 629) and #6 (Denz. 632) of the same session as the error above. In #20 Hus is simply applying his heretical
idea to a Pope: the Pope is wicked, therefore he is not a member of the
Church and therefore he is not the head of the Church – and this is clearly
false and condemned.
So, the above is a case of classic misinterpretation
by non-sedevacantists. The same thing
occurs with the errors of Michael Du Bay and the baptism of desire
advocates. When Popes condemn false
propositions, they condemn the entire
proposition as such. We cannot take
half of the statement out of context.
This is discussed in Section 17 on the Errors of Michael Du Bay in our
book Outside the Catholic Church There is
Absolutely No Salvation.
Question 79 – Are there exceptions on the issue of non-Catholics not
receiving Communion
Re: Ratzinger gave Communion to two known Protestants-
Are there true exceptions for Protestants?
MHFM: No, there are no exceptions
because it is a divine law that cannot be changed. It is rooted in the infallible dogma that
non-Catholics cannot be saved, cannot have their sins remitted and cannot
benefit from the sacraments unto
salvation without being inside the bosom and unity of the true Church. To say that a non-Catholic may lawfully
receive the sacraments is to assert that he can be saved outside the Church and
receive Communion unto salvation
while not being a Catholic. This is heresy.
And this is why for 20 centuries the Catholic Church consistently taught
that heretics cannot receive the sacraments.
This teaching is founded on the dogma that outside the Catholic Church
there is no remission of sins, defined by Pope Boniface VIII.
Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“With Faith
urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church
and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the
Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.”
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The
Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who
are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and
schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the
Church before the end of their lives; that
the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who
abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do
fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian
militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter
how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of
Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Only
for those who abide in the Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments
contribute to salvation. This dogma is
clearly repudiated by the Vatican II sect’s repeated teaching that it is lawful
to give the sacraments to those who do not abide in the Catholic Church.
Vatican II Document,
Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27:
“Given the above-mentioned principles, the
sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be
conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the
Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are
properly disposed.”
Popes
throughout the ages have proclaimed that non-Catholics who receive the Holy
Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive it to their own damnation.
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:
“Jerome used to
say it this way: he who eats the Lamb
outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with
Noah in the ark.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum
divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835:
“… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter
might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house
is unholy.’”
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus
(# 3), April 8, 1862:
“… whoever eats
of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”
Antipope
John Paul II repeated and expanded upon this heresy of Vatican II countless
times. He teaches it clearly in his new
code of canon law (Canon 844.3-4), in his Directory
for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (#’s 122-125)
and in his new catechism (#1401). He
also made many references to this heresy in his speeches.
Question 78 –
Very interesting story about a car accident and a person who insisted on
attending the Novus Ordo
I am from a
large family with half of the siblings being true catholics, and the other half
extremely novus ordo. We have always gotten along great though, until the
traditional side found the true faith through your writings and your website
(about six months ago). Now, all war has broken loose because the
traditionalists will not attend any New Rite "Sacraments" nor
recognize the anti popes as true Popes.
When one of our Aunts (on my moms side
who refers to John Paul II as "John Paul the great") found out the
traditionalists were not going to the novus ordo "first
communions". She in secret (without telling my mom) decided to travel
500 miles to attend the "1st Communions" in support of my sister and
brothers to prove the "validity".
The Communions were on April 30th. She left on April 25th with her
pregnant daughter and three small grandchildren. When she was 100 miles outside of our town, she saw a car coming at her
head on in her lane. She flew off the road, over trees, the car flipped
numerous times, the pregnant mother was thrown from the car and sustained
horrible injuries. My Aunt, the driver also sustained bad injuries.
The children (including the child in the womb) received no injuries and were
all okay (except for being shaken up). My cousin remained in the
hospital for four days, and my aunt for two days. They left on April 29th (never attending the events). My
cousin sadly faces surgery when she returns home.
The eye witness to the car accident said there was NO CAR in my aunt's lane. The car was a complete pancake....it was a true miracle that anyone survived. Anyway, I don't think it was an
accident. I truly believe it was from God. Please pray for their
conversion through this horrific event. I of course completely
compassionate them for getting hurt, and I would not wish something like this
to happen to anyone. But if this could be used to save their souls, what
thanks we would owe our Merciful Lord through the Sorrowful and Immaculate
heart of Mary!!!!
Take Care!
Teri Thurman
MHFM: That is an extremely interesting story. Now, of course, no one is suggesting that
everyone who suffers a car accident (or some other accident) is under divine
wrath. But, in this case, you are
describing a woman who was an obstinate and outspoken defender of the evil New
Mass; she obstinately insisted on attending it for the invalid “First
Communions”; she drove hundreds of miles out of her way to do so despite the
protests of authentic Catholics; and she loved Antipope John Paul II. When one considers all of these things, and
combines them with the fact that the children miraculously suffered no
injuries (in a car that flew over trees and flipped numerous times!) while the
adults who were fully culpable for their actions were seriously injured,
it’s almost definite that God was punishing them for attendance at the New Mass
(which He abhors) and their heretical defense of the Vatican II religion. In this His mercy is also shown, because,
instead of letting them die and be damned, He struck them and let them live, so
that perhaps they would be awakened out of their profound darkness and convert
(which is the hope of every true Catholic for them). This story should remind us – in case we
forget – about how much God hates the New Mass and the apostate Vatican II
religion. It should also remind us that
we cannot attend the New Mass for any reason whatsoever, not invalid “First
Communions” of family, not weddings, nothing. God is not on the side of the Vatican II
apostates; He is on the side of true, traditional Catholics.
Question 77 – Question about the 40 martyrs of
Sebaste?
Dear Bros. Dimond: I was wondering about the situation
of the 40 Roman Martyrs. I've read that the last was baptized in his
blood, rather than water baptism. Since canonizations are infallible, can you
explain this for me?
Jennifer
MHFM: There is a
section on this in the book Outside the
Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, which we strongly
encourage people to get. But here is a
part of that section and some points about the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste. The short answer is that there is no proof
that the 40th martyr wasn’t baptized. The
accounts of the story reveal that he “cried out with a loud voice that he was a
Christian,” probably because he was already a baptized Catholic who was spurred
on to martyrdom by the example of the other thirty-nine; but there is more
information below.
UNBAPTIZED SAINTS?
One of
the biggest objections from baptism of desire/blood advocates is the claim that
the Catholic Church recognizes saints who never received the Sacrament of
Baptism. The answer to this is that the Catholic Church has never recognized
that there are saints in heaven who were not baptized. Some historians have written accounts
of the lives of certain saints in which these saints died without baptism of
water – by “baptism of blood”; but the assertions of these historians prove
nothing.
Not all of the information surrounding the
deaths of martyrs is accurate. For
instance, “According to St. Ambrose,
Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she [St. Agnes] was burned to
death. Our point is that not all of
the information given in the martyrdom narrative is necessarily accurate,
consistent, or complete.”
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise
the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in
the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are
entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise.” (Denz. 165)
Pope St.
Gelasius is saying here that the acts and deeds recorded of the martyrs are
uncertain. Their authors are unknown,
the accounts may contain error and they were not even read out in the holy
Roman Church to avoid possible scandal or mockery which might arise from any
false statements contained therein. In
fact, in his work The Age of Martyrs,
the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti says: “For
guides we have appropriate documents.
These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray. Especially
unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs.” The infallible teaching of the Catholic
Church, on the other hand, is absolutely reliable, and it has never taught that
souls can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by “baptism of blood.” Thus, in short, there is no proof that any
saint martyred for the Catholic Faith never received the Sacrament of
Baptism.
THE FORTY
MARTYRS OF SEBASTE
An example of how the baptism of blood
advocates err in this matter is their assertion that the fortieth martyr of
Sebaste was unbaptized. They say
that he was unbaptized, but that he joined himself with the other thirty-nine
martyrs and froze to death for Christ on the lake. The
fact is that there is no proof that the fortieth martyr of Sebaste was
unbaptized, whose identity is unknown.
The accounts of the story reveal that he “cried out with a loud voice
that he was a Christian,” probably because he was already a baptized Catholic
who was spurred on to martyrdom by the example of the other thirty-nine. Further, in the Roman Martyrology under the
date of September 9, we read:
“As Sebaste in Armenia,
St. Severian, a soldier of Emperor Licinius.
For frequently visiting the Forty Martyrs in prison, he was
suspended in the air with a stone tied to his feet by order of the governor
Lysias…”
It is certain that
Severian was not the fortieth martyr (from the date and circumstances of his
death), but we see from this account that other people and soldiers were able
to visit the Forty in prison. Thus, the
Forty Martyrs easily could have baptized any soldiers who showed interest and
sympathy with their cause, including the
one who joined himself to them eventually (if he wasn’t already
baptized). Thus, there is nothing that
proves that the fortieth martyr was unbaptized, and we know that he was from the truth of our Faith. The same can be said about all of the
approximately 20 cases which are brought forward by the baptism of blood
advocates.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence,
“Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “And since death entered the universe
through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit,
we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”
Question 76
– Another concern about the Novus Ordo words for the Consecration of the bread
being valid
Dear Brother Dimond,
I have a question about something
another traditional Catholic sent to me. I know it is wrong, but I do not know
how to answer it. If someone there has time to help me I would greatly
appriciate it. This is what the gentleman wrote to me: "There is no
sacrifice in the novus ordo missae. The Blood is not fractioned from the body
because.....The consecration of the specie of the wine is heretical and
invalid.
But, St. Thomas teaches in the Summa that Christ is
present in the consecrated Host immediately after the words of the consecration
of the bread. I have never seen anyone address this at all. The novus ordo
missae form for that specie does not err sufficiently to invalidate that part
of the consecration. Therefore I am
forced to conclude, that if the novus ordo missae is celebrated by a
pre-1968validly ordained priest, that Our Lord is tragically present in the
Host but no sacrifice occurs. The vision
Our Lord showed to Padre Pio in 1915, where Our Lord showed him a vast
multitude of priests celebrating Mass and cried "Butchers!, may best sum
up Our Lord being left hanging on the Cross and blasphemed in the novus ordo
mockery."
If you can show me how to answer this gentleman I
would be most happy. Thank you.
Mary Ann Davis
MHFM: This issue was addressed in Question 37. As is explained in more detail in the answer
to Question 37, the failure to use the proper form for the Consecration of the
wine is a failure to intend to do what the Church does. This
defective intention (which arises from the clear defect of form in failing to
use the proper words for the Consecration of the wine) is present when the
Novus Ordo priest says “This is My Body,” and thus nothing occurs at that
moment.
Question 74 – Question about Ursula O.?
Dear Brothers Dimond,
I am new to the internet, but I have been familiar with your work from
"Crying in the Wilderness" magazines which were sent to me by Father
Cyril Town, may he rest in peace. I am a "cradle" Catholic who
stupidly went along with the Vatican 2 revolt. I finally saw the light
about eleven years ago, but have been disgusted with the so-called
traditionalists like John Vennari and all those at Catholic Family News who
hold that the current occupants of the Vatican are true popes. How
absurd! And I was also shocked when I heard Mel Gibson say in his
television interview that one does not have to be a Christian to be saved.
I was also very interested to hear from you that his father, Hutton, also does
not believe that outside the church there is no salvation.
It goes without saying that I'm very pleased to have found your website which I
believe is genuinely Catholic! Bravo for your pull no punches writings in
calling a spade a spade, or rather an apostate an apostate! I wonder if
you know of any other genuinely Catholic sources? I imagine you are
familiar with Ursula Oxfort. What is your opinion of her?
Margaret
MHFM:
Thanks for the interest and encouragement.
Unfortunately, Ursula Oxfort obstinately accepts the Vatican II
Antipopes as true Popes. In a
conversation with her a few years ago I attempted to share with her the facts
which prove that a Catholic cannot accept the Vatican II Antipopes as true
Popes. She didn’t even have the
courage to discuss the issue; she immediately – and quite cowardly – hung up
the telephone. This was obviously to
avoid confronting the facts. She
obstinately holds that heretics can be part of the Catholic Church, which is
heretical. She also holds that Vatican
II didn’t bind her to anything because it was merely a “pastoral” council,
which is refuted in our article Was Vatican II infallible? (We
feel that this article is very important; it proves that those who accept
Paul VI as Pope must “religiously observe” all in Vatican II. It also proves that Paul VI solemnly
promulgated the Vatican II heresies.)
Ursula O. also holds that the Catholic Church has defected, because she
holds that the Conciliar Church (which she admits is apostate) is the Catholic
Church.
Question
73 – How can one judge a Pope?
I understand John Paul 2 and the other conciliar popes have done things
obviously heretical, but can you explain to me how you can judge the pope? As I
thought I understood it, no one is allowed to do that but God Himself. I find
myself doing that as well, but I wonder if that is a sin, or in what case it is
a sin. If you could please just make this clear for me, I’d appreciate
it.
MHFM: When someone
demonstrates manifest heresy or apostasy – such as Paul VI, John Paul II and
Benedict XVI, for example – then he shows himself to be a manifest
non-Catholic. In recognizing that such a
manifest heretic is not a Catholic, you are not judging a Pope, but a manifest
non-Catholic who claims to be the Pope.
St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic
automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases
automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by
the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that
manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II,
30)
St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.:"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of
which we have spoken above. Then indeed
the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to
Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to
be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he
was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or
able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic
by his external works, they judge him
to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a
heretic.”
Here, St. Robert Bellarmine is
talking about Pope Liberius and the Arian heresy in the 4th Century. It was widely believed at that time that the
Pope (Liberius) fell into a compromise with the Arian heretics and had St.
Athanasius excommunicated. This turned
out to be false, as Pope Pius IX points out.
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 16), January 6, 1873, On False Accusations:
“And previously the Arians falsely accused Liberius, also Our
predecessor, to the Emperor Constantine, because Liberius refused to condemn
St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and refused to support their heresy.”
But even though it turned out that
the Pope (Liberius) was not a heretic, St. Robert Bellarmine says that because
Liberius appeared to be a heretic, the Catholics who thought that he had given
in to Arianism justifiably considered him a heretic – and as one who was
outside the Church and not the Pope.
Therefore, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, they justifiably went
over to Felix, who began to reign! In
other words, even though Pope Liberius was not a heretic (and actually was
still the true Pope), he appeared to be a heretic to many, and therefore was
necessarily considered as not the Pope, BECAUSE CATHOLICS CANNOT PROFESS
COMMUNION WITH PEOPLE WHO ADHERE TO HERESY IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM.
If St. Robert’s words show that
Catholics were justified in presuming Pope Liberius a heretic and outside the
Church (who only appeared to be a heretic, but actually wasn’t), how much more
in the case of the Vatican II Antipopes
who are without any doubt total apostates and heads of a new religion!
By the way, the phrase “No one can judge the Pope” actually means “No
one can judge the Holy See.”
Pope St. Nicholas, epistle (8), Proposueramus
quidem, 865:
“… Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, not by
the people will the judge be judged… ‘The
first seat will not be judged by anyone.’” (Denz. 330)
Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax
hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, Chap. 11:
“By passing judgment on the
great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you
have received anathema from all the Fathers of the venerable Councils…” (Denz.
352)
This means that a Catholic cannot depart from the authoritative
decisions decreed by the Apostolic See for the whole Church; and it means that
no one can subject the true Pope to a trial.
This is why heretics like Bob S. who say that a heretical “Pope” must be
judged to be heretical by a trial of Cardinals or Bishops are completely
wrong. They are elevating a Council of
Bishops or Cardinals above a Pope. The
only reason that a trial could theoretically denounce as a heretic a man who claimed to be the Pope is if this
“Pope” had already lost his office without declaration due to manifest heresy
and therefore was not the Pope.
The fact is that a manifest heretic cannot be the Pope. This is a matter of divine law. If he was a heretic at the time of election
(as Antipope Benedict XVI clearly was), then the election is completely null
and void (Pope Paul IV). If a Catholic
Pope is elected and becomes a manifest heretic he loses his office
automatically.
Question 70 – Question about judging souls?
Dear Br. Dimond,
I am new to your website and I wanted to tell you that I think your research is
outstanding! I have one question regarding the passing of judgment. I
always wonder and try to be careful of crossing the line when judging someone’s
action vs. intention.
Sincerely,
Melissa
MHFM: Thank you
for your question. When a person
demonstrates an obstinate and clear rejection of the truth of Jesus Christ or
the Catholic Faith then a Catholic is not only justified, but required to judge
him to be bad willed. His bad intentions
are shown by his obstinately bad actions.
Take St. Polycarp’s conduct (who certainly had the Apostolic Faith), for
example.
St. Ireneaus, Against
Heresies: “Once he [St. Polycarp]
was met by Marcion, who said to him, ‘Do you recognize me?’ and Polycarp
replied, ‘I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!’” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:212)
Since St. Polycarp had the true Faith, he knew that a
person such as Marcion (who demonstrated an obstinate rejection of the truth)
was of bad will and of Satan. By the
way, St. Polycarp (A.D. 70- A.D. 156) knew the Apostle John himself. But the modern-day heretics would have St.
Polycarp say:
“I don’t know your intentions and you may
mean well, but objectively speaking you are the firstborn of Satan.”
Can you imagine St. Polycarp saying that? No, a person with the true Faith doesn’t say
that about a person who clearly and obstinately rejects the truth of
Christ. To say that a person who
demonstrates a clear-cut and obstinate rejection of the truth is of good will –
or might be of good will – is an insult to God and the Catholic Faith. It is almost a blasphemy against God, because
it means that God doesn’t give a man the grace to see the truth, and that good
willed people can reject Christ (whom they are rejecting by obstinately
rejecting the true Faith). Where we have
to be careful is if it is not clear that a person is sufficiently familiar with
the truths he is rejecting. But let me
give you an example of a judgment that a Catholic must make. In the case of people who have seen the
apostasy of the Vatican II Antipopes for years and yet still refuse to call the
Vatican II Antipopes even heretics,
one can say (as Polycarp did to Marcion) that they are of bad will and of
Satan.
Question 69
– An attempted to response on the Co-Redeemer issue
[Note: this
person has seen the article and the dogmatic teaching of Trent on this issue
and yet obstinately maintains his or her position. This person is a defender of Dennis M.]
If Our
Blessed Mother,at the Annunciation said no to Saint Gabriel, redemption never
happens.If Our Lady doesn't come to Our Blessed Lord at Cana,the road to
Calvary does not begin.This is what is meant by Co-redemptrix,not
co-equal,(only that she played a part in our redemption).An example is in order
here.If a guy goes into a bank and robs it,while a woman waits in the getaway
car.Later when caught, although she did not actually rob the bank,she is
still arrested as a co-conspirator,because she played a part in the bank
robbery.Nobody is saying that Our Blessed Mother could have paid the price for
us and opened the gates of Heaven for us.In fact,She needed a Savior, just like
the rest of us.Although Our Lady having never been a party to original, or
actual sin,would not have gone to Hell,the best She could have hoped
for,(without Our Blessed Lord'sGreat Sacrifice of Calvary),would be to be at
the Pearly Gates,never to have gotten inside them.Only Our Blessed Savior could
get those Gates openned.Never the less, She did have a role to play
in all of this. This in no way tramples on
Trent. This is something that you have failed to see so far.
L.C.
MHFM: We addressed this issue in detail in the
article. Do you know what the word “alone” means? It means that no
one else is included. Try to get that through your head. You don’t accept
Trent because you don’t really believe that a dogmatic definition is without
error. You don’t really believe that the Holy Ghost protects and
watches over the dogmatic teaching of the Church. If you did, you
would accept Trent’s infallible declaration that Jesus Christ ALONE is our
Redeemer. But you don’t accept it because you don’t really believe in
Papal Infallibility. You are no different from the salvation heretics who
say that “yes, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but that
doesn’t mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved.” You say: “yes, Jesus
ALONE is our Redeemer, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t another Redeemer.”
That is simply a wicked lie. Don’t mock God and say that you believe that
Jesus ALONE is Redeemer when you don’t.
Pope Pius
IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of
Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with
Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to
invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son
JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS
OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach
or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”
(Denz. 984-987)
What you
fail to see is that Our Lady’s role was absolutely unique (as discussed in
detail in the article), but that doesn’t make her the Co-Redeemer. You
are falling into heresy because you are obstinately rejecting the Council of
Trent. This is not our dogma; it is the teaching of the Catholic
Church. You believe in two Redeemers.
Our Lady agrees with us on this issue; she most certainly doesn’t agree with
you.
Question 68 – Where does the Church teach that the
Sacraments cannot be changed?
Dear Br. Dimond,
Can you please tell
me where the Church has taught that the form of the sacraments cannot be
changed?
In JMJ,
-Steve Heaslip
p.s. Thank you for all your hard work
and dedication to spreading the Truth!
MHFM: Thanks for the question. The
Church teaches that it has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,”
which are those things specifically instituted by Christ to be preserved in a
sacramental sign. The “substance of the
sacraments” would include the forms of the sacraments instituted specifically
by Christ, such as the form of Consecration in the Eucharist.
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..."
This was also taught by Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351 (Denz. 570m)
and Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent,
Session 21, Chap. 2 (Denz. 931). The
Novus Ordo sect has changed the substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by
removing words specifically given by Christ in the form of Consecration. This proves that it is not the Catholic
Church.
Question 66 – More Notes on Gruner’s position from a
reader
I was curious to see what Fr. Gruner would
say now about Ratzinger, now that he's the new "pope", considering
what he wrote about him in The Devils Final Battle. He would not blame the
boss, JPII, but blamed Ratzinger, Sodano, Castrillon etc.
I went to Fr. Gruners's web site, and my
question was answered, headline reads, Habemus Papam. Benedict XVI
The Fatima Center and Our Lady's web site joins with all true Catholics
everywhere in praying and hoping that this new pontificate will witness the
restoration of our holy traditions and sacred customs and that our new Holy
Father, Pope Benedict XVI will, at long last, fulfill the solemn request which
the Mother of God made at Fatima for the consecration of Russia, thereby
assuring the conversion of that poor nation and a period of peace to our poor,
war-torn and tortured world.
I guess that Ratzinger, now that he is
"pope", is no longer blamable, an untouchable, for not consecrating
Russia (for not believing in the message altogether)?
Vegap
MHFM: Yes, you are exactly
correct. If Gruner had known that
Ratzinger would be “elected,” he probably wouldn’t have accused him in his
book. Nevertheless, even if he does criticize
him he is still a heretic for being in communion with the apostate Vatican II
sect. Also, Gruner hopes that the new
Antipope “will witness the restoration of our holy traditions and sacred
customs.”
t
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15,
1832:
“Therefore,
it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and
regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and
growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other
misfortune.”
The Catholic Church cannot need
restoration, and it cannot give up its sacred traditions. Gruner’s “Church” is not the Catholic Church,
but a modernist, heretical, apostate non-Catholic sect. The heretic Michael Matt recently expressed
the same blasphemy against the Catholic Church:
Michael Matt, The Remnant, April 15, 2005, p. 10: “Abortion, like euthanasia and
contraception and all the rest, is but a symptom of a much larger and more
deadly disease – the modernization of
the Catholic Church through the watering down of her doctrine and her sacred
liturgy.”
This is not possible. Their
“Church” is not the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been
contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian
bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ
cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the
sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 22), Dec. 11, 1925:
“Not least among the blessings which have
resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and
the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity
of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787:
“… Christ our God, when He took for His
Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having
no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy
disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
Session 9, March 23, 1440:
“…the
Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and
she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Question
65 – More on the question: Is Our Lady the Co-Redeemer?
For more on this issue, click here: Refuting a Response on Co-Redemptrix; defending the necessity of
devotion to Our Lady; and defending the truth that Jesus Christ is our Sole
Redeemer
Question 62 – Can one attend the Wedding reception of
a Novus Ordo friend?
Dear Brother Dimond,
I have been invited to a Novus Ordo wedding this
summer. The person getting married is a close friend of the family.
We've known him for several years (since childhood). The problem is that
he was married before in a Novus Ordo church, got divorced, and now he's getting
married again in the very same parish. I
know I cannot attend his wedding because the Catholic Church condemns divorce
and re-marriage. I would probably commit a sin if I attended. But
then if I don't attend it might harm relations with them. So I figure the most I should do is show up
at the reception hall. What do you think?
Alain
MHFM: Thank you
very much for your question. This is a
very important issue. I hope that people
will read all of what is said here. This
is one of those issues which come up where people show Jesus Christ whether
they stand for Him or whether they choose the world. It is one of those many decisions that people make in life which shows God whether
they are really committed to Him and want to walk the straight and narrow path
that leads to life, or whether they will wander off into the broad road that
leads to eternal death – because they don’t want to offend man or break with
the herd headed for damnation. It is one
of those decisions which shows whether the true Catholic Faith is a reality
that one lives or whether it is simply a garment that one puts on certain days
and when it is convenient.
“Christianity for them [Jacinta, Franciso
and Lucia] was not like a garment to be put on on Sundays. It was like the air they breathed, it was a
part and the most important part, of reality.” (William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 31.)
The answer to your question is NO, A CATHOLIC ABSOLUTELY CANNOT ATTEND EVEN THE WEDDING RECEPTION of a
Novus Ordo friend or a person holding any heresy which rejects the truth of Our
Lord Jesus Christ, whether or not he is a Protestant or professes to be
Catholic or traditionally Catholic. A
person can only attend the Wedding or Wedding receptions of authentic
Traditional Catholics who accept all the teachings of the Church and don’t
compromise with, support or accept any heresy.
The reason for this is simple: those people that are
getting married as Protestants, in the Novus Ordo, or as “traditionalists” who
hold or support some heresy, are getting married in a state that is displeasing
to God – because they are rejecting the Catholic Faith in one or more
ways. If you celebrate their marriage with them by attending the reception
then you are honoring and celebrating their marriage which is displeasing to
God. Also, by attending such a
wedding or reception one is
indicating that he doesn’t think that the person is on the road to Hell. That is a scandal to the Faith, and that is
why a Catholic absolutely cannot attend even the wedding reception.
This issue involves the divine law:
2
Corinthians 6:14- “Bear not the yoke
with unbelievers: For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness… or what part hath the faithful with the
unbeliever?”
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).”
This simply means that Catholics cannot have any
intercourse/interaction with heretics or unbelievers which gives them the impression
that you accept them as good people or respect their false religion. Attending the Wedding reception of people in celebration
of their marriage as heretics or in a false Mass, etc. certainly gives them the
impression that you accept them as good people.
But Catholic Faith obliges you to hold that the state that they are
currently in is something that is displeasing to God (even if it is a valid
marriage).
With these facts in mind, we can see that the reason
that you cannot go is not primarily that your friend is already married
and that his second marriage will be invalid and adulterous. Even if his marriage were valid you still
couldn’t even go to the reception because he is getting married in the Novus
Ordo (in a state and in a way that is displeasing to God and will lead him to
Hell).
Undoubtedly, many people will have trouble with this
because they will find it too hard. That
is why most people go to Hell.
Matthew
7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate:
for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and
many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and
strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”
St. Anselm:
“If you wish to be saved, strive to be
among the fewest of the few. Do not
follow the majority of mankind, but follow those who renounce the world,
and never lax their efforts day and night so that they may attain everlasting
blessedness.”
John
6:61-67-“Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear
it?... After this many of his
disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then
Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?”
Most people will find it too hard to actually call up
their friend and tell him that, in charity, they cannot attend his Wedding or
even his reception as long as he is a Protestant or accepts the Novus Ordo or
holds that non-Catholics can be saved or supports the SSPX or accepts the
Vatican II religion or accepts NFP or the Vatican II Antipopes, etc. And because people cannot make that stand for
Christ, that is why very few people make
it to heaven.
You captured the choice well in your e-mail when you
said:
“I would probably commit a sin if I
attended. But then if I don't
attend it might harm relations with them. So I figure the most I
should do is show up at the reception hall.”
This is exactly the choice people have to make when
issues such as this arise: do people wish to offend man or do they wish to
offend Jesus Christ?
Matthew
10:33- “But he that shall deny me before
men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”
One last point: If one has done his Catholic duty of
admonishing his friend about the Novus Ordo, Protestantism or the heretical
traditional groups, etc. and has told him that he cannot be saved on such a
path, then the person will fully understand when one tells him that he cannot
attend his wedding reception as long as he is not in line with the fullness of
Catholic Faith, because the person has already been told about this and knows
the other’s stand. But if one has failed
in his Catholic duty of charitably admonishing his friend about the Novus Ordo,
Protestantism, heretical traditional groups, etc., then his friend will not
understand why one does not go to the Wedding or the reception. So, it really is an issue and a problem only
for those who are denying Christ by failing to charitably admonish their
friends and failing to try to convert them to the true Faith. This should show us again that refusing
attendance at such a Wedding reception is intimately tied to professing the
true Faith.
Question 61–
An attempted response to the strongest argument refuting baptism of desire
Dear MHFM:
Comment on
Question 59. The relevant issue in the
Baptism of desire debate is whether or not the desire for baptism can (in
certain circumstances) confect the sacrament not whether the sacrament is
necessary. I find it of interest that when asked for your strongest argument,
you do not address any of the relevant points.
Your
“strongest argument” is basically; every human creature must be subject to the
Roman Pontiff for salvation, Children are placed under the authority of the
Church by baptism, if one has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to
the Roman Pontiff.
This is very
interesting but it has no relevance in so far as to whether or not desire could (in certain circumstances) confect the
sacrament. If desire could confect the sacrament, would
it then not follow that such a person would also be under the
authority of the Church?
Louis
Augustine Blackwood
MHFM: No, sir, you are completely mistaken. Baptism
of desire advocates fully admit that baptism of desire is not a
Sacrament. This is dealt with in our
book. Baptism of desire advocates hold
that baptism of desire merely confers the grace of baptism, but they
fully and readily admit that it is not a Sacrament or the Sacrament of
Baptism.
Fr. Francois
Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is
Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9: “Baptism
of Desire is not a sacrament... it does not produce the sacramental character.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated above, a
sacrament is a kind of sign. The other
two [baptism of desire and blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not,
indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently
they are not sacraments.”
Baptism of desire is not an outward sign;
and it does not confer the indelible character of Baptism, which the Sacrament
of Baptism infallibly confers.
Council of Trent,
Sess. 7, Canon 9 on the Sacraments: “If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation and order,
there is not imprinted on the soul a
character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, by reason of which
they cannot be repeated, let him be anathema.”
Baptism of desire is not a Sacrament; both sides admit this. So, your attempted response fails immediately. Thus, the argument refuting baptism of desire stands: since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Trent), it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).
A
Related Point
And this
allows me to bring forward another point which refutes baptism of desire. Can.5 of Trent on Baptism anathematizes
anyone who says that it is not necessary for salvation.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,
Sess. 7, Can. 5: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
What most
people overlook is the fact that this Canon is a Canon on “the Sacrament of
Baptism” which means that it is declaring infallibly that the actual
Sacrament of water baptism is necessary for salvation. Notice how the heretic Bishop McKenna failed
to realize this, hoping to get around this Canon:
Bishop Mckenna to MHFM: “The Canon [Can.
5] does not specify Baptism of water…”
But this is
completely wrong. I refuted this by
pointing out to him that Canon 5 is a Canon on the Sacrament of Baptism (Canones
de sacramento baptismi).
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,
Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If
anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary
for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
We can see that Trent defines that “the Sacrament” of Baptism is
necessary for salvation. The Catholic
Church infallibly teaches that the actual Sacrament of water baptism (which
confers an indelible character on the soul) is necessary for salvation. But notice how the heretical SSPX word for
word denied this dogma in their Angelus
Press 2005 catalogue. Here is what
they have in their catalogue to advertise their heretical book Is Feeneyism Catholic?:
“[The book]
Explains Baptism of Desire and the errors of those who deny it. How some confuse the grace of baptism
(which is necessary for salvation) with the character of baptism (which is
not necessary for salvation) with the consequent denial of the
simple truth that all that is really necessary for salvation is to die in the
state of grace.”
The heretics of the SSPX say that the character of baptism [i.e. the
Sacrament] is not necessary for salvation; the Catholic Church says
exactly the opposite. They word for word
contradict Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism!
This should show us again that the evil spirit is behind the SSPX’s
promotion of salvation for non-Catholics.
For a full expose of the evil book Is
Feeneyism Catholic, read the section on it in our book which is available on
our site.
Question 60– What do you think of Bishop Tom S. and
Fr. Dennis M.?
Dear Brothers,
I have read your articles with great
interest! I would like to know more about Father Dennis M… and Bishop
Thom S…. Both groups uphold the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla
Salus. What is your opinion of them? Is a Catholic safe to approach
them for the Sacraments? In Jesus and Mary,
-A. Y.
MHFM: Thank you for your
question. Both questions are addressed
and answered in the following article:
Bishop Tom S. *new*
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question
59– What is the strongest argument against baptism of desire?
What do you think is
the strongest argument which refutes baptism of desire?
MHFM: There are about 11 arguments from the dogmatic teaching of the Church which refute baptism of desire; and none of which can the baptism of desire advocates even begin to answer. They are enumerated in our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, in section 33, page 247. They are proven in detail throughout the book, and all the objections made by baptism of desire advocates are answered in the book. We strongly encourage everyone to get the book, which is available from us for only $5.00 and comes included with our $15.00 special. But one argument that I really like is found in section 7 of the book. Remember, this is only one argument out of many that could be given.
7. Subjection to the Church/Roman Pontiff
The second definition from the Chair of Peter on Outside the Church There is No Salvation came from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
This means infallibly that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation. Obviously, this does not mean that one must be subject to an Antipope for salvation, which is what we have today. It means that everyone must be subject to the true Pope, if and when we have one.
But how are infants subject to the Roman Pontiff? This is a good question. Notice that Pope Boniface VIII did not declare that every human creature must know the Roman Pontiff, but that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Infants become subject to the Roman Pontiff by their baptism into the one Church of Christ, of which the Roman Pontiff is the head.
Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884:
“The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism…”
Children are placed under the authority of the Church by baptism. Thus, by their baptism they are made subject to the Roman Pontiff, since the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church (First Vatican Council, de fide). This proves that baptism is actually the first component in determining whether or not one is subject to the Roman Pontiff. If one has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff, because the Church exercises judgment (i.e., jurisdiction) over no one who has not entered the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide).
Pope Julius III, Council
of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap.
2, ex cathedra: “… since the Church exercises judgment on
no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without
(1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is
otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the
laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
It is not possible, therefore, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment (jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de fide, Trent). And since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).
Question 58– An Eastern “Orthodox” Bishop writes in and tells us that
the Archdiocese of Boston told him not to convert
Greetings in Christ!
I have been watching your site for sometime now and wanted to know more about your organization. I was at one time very active in the Ecumenical Movement but left sometime ago due to what I had seen as being problematic. I do have many questions though and hope you can provide me with some answers please.
But let me tell you a little bit about myself: I am a Coptic Orthodox Bishop... I am also fairly new to the internet as well. I know of several priests and another bishop in Cairo that are thinking of converting to the Catholic faith.
For myself, I was told by the Diocese of Boston that: "There is no need to Convert, there is salvation for non-Catholics."
I was very disheartened and confused as I am sure you can understand.
I do have many concerns and questions concerning Catholic doctrine though.
And I am looking for "above-average" answers to my questions, that is, materials that are scholarly.
I ask please: KEEP MY NAME AND INFORMATION PRIVATE.
My questions concern:…. I live on a tight budget and truly hope that you can help me out please. I wish to read, study and pray before I engage in a conversation with your organization. I thank you for your time and help. I am looking for indepth scholarly materials and the Roman Catechism and Official Church Teachings. Any Papal Encyclicals or Dogma (Roman) Books would be great! …
Yours in Christ,
Bishop [we are withholding his name as he requested].....
MHFM: This pretty much sums it up. This is totally evil and totally heretical. It shows us again in striking fashion that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, and that the Vatican II Antipopes are not true Popes. Most importantly, however, it shows us why recognizing that the Vatican II sect is not Catholic is so essential. Those who fail to realize this are defending a non-Catholic sect and are not Catholics. [We have sent some material to this man in the hope for his conversion.]
Question 57–
Where to attend Mass? SSPV? SSPX?
Dear Br. Dimond
I have attended Mass at both SSPV and SSPX chapels but have only heard the Baptism of Desire nonsense at the SSPX, we have never heard any heretical teachings by the SSPV, here in St. Louis or Parma Oh. I was just curious if you have heard from anybody else attending the SSPV chapels and did they acutally hear the heresy. I have to admit I am confused about the entire situation. Formely you said it is ok to attend Mass at the SSPV, now you say recieve no Sacraments from them, if so where do we go? Or are we like St. Mary Magdalen is asking " where have they taken my Lord"?
Michael Davis
MHFM: Michael, a Catholic absolutely cannot go to the SSPV because they have made it publicly known that they do not regard as faithful Catholics those who believe only in one baptism of water. They refuse the sacraments to those who believe what the Church teaches; therefore to receive sacraments from such heretics would be to tacitly (silently) agree that you don't hold that only baptized Catholics can be saved. (The reason that you may not have heard heresy recently at the SSPV chapels is because they quieted down on this issue after we publicly exposed their abominable practice and announcements. But their position is the same: they will refuse the sacraments to those who believe in one baptism of water; and they don't regard such persons as faithful Catholics.)
I would say
that perhaps the only option for you is the SSPX; but you must not contribute
any money to them under pain of mortal sin. Also, many of the SSPX
priests have stated publicly that they "if you are a sedevacantist or a
Feeneyite then you are not welcome here." This is happening in
various places: in California, in NYC, etc., etc., etc. We were just
contacted by someone in Ireland who told us that Fr. Angles told him that he is
not welcome at their chapel if he publicly spreads or speaks of
Sedevacantism. We told the man that he definitely should not attend the
SSPX chapel since that is the case. So, I would say to you that if the priest holds that position (that
Sedevacantists and those who believe in one baptism of water are not welcome),
then you should not go and you would just have to stay home on Sunday.
If he doesn't hold that position, then you could go without contributing any money whatsoever and as long as he is not notoriously preaching his heresy. (And if they are having a requiem Mass for Antipope John Paul II, then you obviously should not go to that Mass.)
Cardinal de Lugo, who was a prominent theologian of the 17th century, who was often quoted by St. Alphonsus, addresses this very issue:
“The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.
“But the opposite view [i.e. that attendance at such a Mass is lawful] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (Cardinal John de Lugo S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio . According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Alphonsus regarded Cardinal de Lugo as second only to St. Thomas as a theologian.)
Notice that Cardinal de Lugo distinguishes between attending a heretical rite (which is never permitted) and attending a Catholic Mass or rite celebrated by an undeclared heretic (e.g. a priest of the SSPX who celebrates the Catholic rite and claims to be Catholic but is actually a heretic); de Lugo is thus addressing the very issue which is confronting people today and which was posed in the question. And what does he say? He teaches that attendance at such a Mass is lawful and that this is the “general and true” position of Catholic theologians. Please note that Cardinal de Lugo also points out that if circumstances are such that scandal or a denial of the Faith would necessarily arise (e.g., if the priest made an announcement that everyone who attends must agree with him, such as the priests of the SSPV), then you necessarily couldn’t go; or if the priest is notorious about his heresy, then you definitely shouldn’t go. But that is not the case at all Masses celebrated by undeclared heretical priests in the Catholic rite; otherwise de Lugo would have stated that the teaching of all theologians is that all such Masses must always be avoided. So, if the SSPX priest is making the announcement described above, you definitely shouldn’t go; and either way you cannot support him.
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question 56– What about “Sister
Lucia”? She accepted John Paul II. Is she condemned?
Dear MHFM,
Sister Lucia, whom you quote, in your efforts to build you case for
sedevacantism and declaring Pope JP II as an "antipope”… remained loyal to
Rome, to John Paul II. How do you reconcile Sister Lucia's continued loyalty
and obedience till death, and I take it she thefore held that John Paul II was
a real Pope
along WITH ALL OTHERS since 1958? Meanwhile you hold a different belief to
this.
So, is Sister Lucia consigned to Hell as you consign John Paul II?
Michael Webb
MHFM: The Sister Lucia issue seems to be one of people’s favorite topics. It seems like we are constantly getting questions about her. The answer is that the lady posing as “Sister Lucia” for the past few decades proved herself time and again to be a fraud – i.e., not the real Sister Lucia. (They had to get a fake Sister Lucia because they knew that millions would be interested to see if she was accepting all of the radical changes.)
First of all, we know that she is a fraud because she belonged to a false religion which accepts man-made religions and religions of devils (all non-Christian religions) as acceptable and good. God does not reward with heaven those who accept false religions and thus deny Him. But we know that this “Sister Lucia” did because she adhered to the Vatican II religion, which believes in salvation outside the Church and that all religions are more or less good.
This “Sister Lucia” also proved herself to be a fraud when she clearly contradicted the real Sister Lucia many times on the most fundamental points. 1. This “Sister Lucia” stated that the Third Secret of Fatima was never intended to be revealed – which his absurd and directly contradicts the real Lucia’s statements. 2. She said that Our Lady never said that the Third Secret was intended to be revealed by 1960 at the latest – which his absurd and directly contradicts the real Lucia’s statements. 3. She said that the “Third Secret” which the Vatican released was indeed the Third Secret! – even though it clearly contradicts facts which were known about the Third Secret, such as it being only one sheet of paper and only 25 to 30 lines. [The Vatican’s version is four sheets of paper and many more lines]. 4. This “Sister Lucia” publicly endorsed the Vatican’s interpretation of the “Third Secret” which was that it was about the assassination attempt on John Paul II! 5. She said that John Paul II successfully consecrated Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.
6. I actually met a Novus Ordo priest many years ago who was present during the notorious interview “Two Hours With Sister Lucia.” This priest told me himself – and he was not a traditionalist - that “Sister Lucia” couldn’t answer basic questions about her life and that there were real problems with her. He said that this “Sister Lucia” got so flustered in the interview that she grabbed his leg. (This is why she was almost always kept hidden away so that no one could interview her. The Vatican knew that when subjected to questioning she would be proven to be an imposter.)
7. There are distinct facial differences between the real Sister Lucia and this “Sister Lucia.” A woman actually sent us a rough draft of an entire book – replete with pictures – that was dedicated to this topic. The book showed that the teeth and a very distinct dimple that the real Sister Lucia had were different from this “Sister Lucia.” (The fake “Sister Lucia’s” teeth clearly appear to be her actual teeth – i.e., not fixed or replaced – and they do not show the very distinct, jarring tooth that the real Sister Lucia had.)
8. This “Sister Lucia” did not look to be almost 100 years old. Anyone who saw her fluidity of movement at the 2000 “Beatifications” of Jacinta and Francisco could see that she moved and acted like a woman much, much younger.
Here is an excerpt from the interview Two Hours with Sister Lucia:
Sister Lucy: 'The Third Secret is not intended to be revealed.
It was only intended for the Pope and the immediate Church hierarchy.'
Carlos: 'But didn't Our Lady say that it was to be revealed to the public by
1960, at the latest?'
Sister Lucy: 'Our Lady never said that. Our Lady said that it was
for the Pope.'
Father Pacheco: 'Does the Third Secret have to do with the Second Vatican
Council?'
Sister Lucy: 'I cannot say.'
Carlos: 'Can the Pope reveal the Third Secret?'
Sister Lucy: 'The Pope can reveal it if he chooses to, but I advise
him not to. If he chooses to, I advise great prudence. He must be prudent.'
The real Sister Lucia is on record, and this record is undeniable, as saying that the Third Secret, according to the wishes of Our Lady, was to be revealed to the public by 1960 at the latest. This "Sister Lucia" buries any possibility of her being the real one when she says that the Third Secret was never intended to be revealed and that it shouldn't be revealed.
So, in summary: If you believe that one can
be devoted to Our Lady and Our Lord and rewarded with heaven while accepting a
false religion (the Vatican II sect) which endorses all religions, then
accept this “Sister Lucia.” If you
believe that Sister Lucia could contradict her own testimony and say that the
Third Secret was never intended to be revealed by 1960, then accept this
“Sister Lucia.” If you believe that the
“Third Secret” which the Vatican released is actually the Third Secret of
Fatima [which is a bad joke], then accept this “Sister Lucia.” If you
believe that the “Third Secret” of Fatima - which took the real Sister Lucia
weeks to write down because it was so horrible - is about the assassination attempt on Antipope John Paul II (when
the real Sister Lucia said the Third Secret will become clearer in 1960!),
then accept this Sister Lucia, because she endorsed this interpretation of the
“Third Secret.”
So, is this fake “Sister Lucia” condemned? It is a divinely revealed truth that all who die as non-Catholics are lost to Hell. We also know that it’s possible for anyone to convert to true Catholicism before death; but, as we’ve said, unless there is evidence of conversion or adherence to Catholic truth in the external forum, they are considered to have died as they lived (as non-Catholics) and no one can pray for them and must presume them lost. That would apply to this fake “Lucia.” For more info on this topic, see question #1 of our Summer Q and A.
Question
55– Reader informs us that Fr. Radecki of CMRI commends John Paul II to
people’s prayers!
Greetings Bro. Michael, Bro. Peter
Fr. Radecki at St. Joseph's in wayne mich. from the pulpit asked everyone to "commend in your prayers the passing of John Paul 2." [he also didn’t call John Paul II a heretic and didn’t say that he wasn’t the Pope in the sermon.] Yours in Christ... Robert Blascyk
MHFM: That is truly atrocious, but not surprising. It is not surprising that they hold that even someone who died as JP2 can be saved (when he gave no evidence of conversion) because they also believe – with the heretic Bishop McKenna – that even Jews who reject Jesus Christ can be saved. The fact is that they believe that it’s possible for someone to be saved in any religion, just like Bishop Lefebvre did.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”
Notice the “etc.” The word “etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”! Bishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which people can be saved. And the priests of the CMRI hold the same. They are faithless, as are all who deny this dogma.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.
Sadly, they don’t have supernatural Faith in Jesus Christ or His Church (as they reject His necessity and His Church’s infallible teaching), and they totally contradict the practice of the Church, which forbids us to pray for a heretic without evidence of his conversion in the external forum.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is
the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men
condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil
and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this
reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men,
because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment,
they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they
are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”
Question 54– How to approach Novus
Ordo family members? What does one say?
My name is Mary Anne…and I had a couple questions regarding how to approach people who are not true catholics. My in-laws are Novus ordo, and half my family is down the tubes as well. If I am ever confronted by them in a discussion about the faith or end times, what should I say? How should I handle them? I am a very non-confrontational person, and sometimes I shy away from telling them what is what. I know that keeping silence is a very grave sin, but sometimes when I do speak up it comes out the wrong way or I feel I am drawing them farther away from our lord. Should I just keep them in my daily Rosary's and let God show them the way, or should I stand up and create more disturbance on their conscience? Please help.
MHFM: Mary Anne, a Catholic has the obligation to tell his family members the truth. We recommend that people always start with the Vatican II sect and John Paul II’s teaching on non-Catholics and non-Catholic religions (i.e., their false ecumenism). Point out to them that the Church teaches that all non-Catholic religions are false, and that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Pope St. Gregory
the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“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.”
Then point out that Vatican II and John Paul II teach that non-Catholics can be saved and that false religions are good. Point out to them that John Paul II asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam; that he assisted people in the practice of Judaism; and that he taught we shouldn’t convert the eastern schismatics, etc., etc., etc.
Regarding the New Mass, point out to them that it changes the words of Jesus Christ in the Consecration – words declared necessary by the Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V. Then point out to them that they have an obligation to adhere to the Traditional Catholic Faith and reject this new, non-Catholic religion if they want to be saved. That is where we would always try to start.
Question 53– What about those who say that John Paul II did not suffer
at death and said “Amen”?
Thank you, dear brothers, for your thoughts on the
passing of JPII… How to explain to those who say "everyone says he didn't
die in any torment---he was calm, peaceful, smiling", etc.?...Thank you
and may God bless us and have mercy on us all.
Kathleen
MHFM: A number of people have asked us this. Here, in fact, is what one heretic who works for the Coming Home Network whose program appears on EWTN wrote to us:
[the heretic writes]: I guess we can now say we have one thing in common, we both believe the seat of Peter to be empty. Unfortunately you are still spitting forth your lies… The Pope did speak before he passed, in what was his last breath he said "Amen"; funny that you do not post this on your site.
But this heretic is refuted by the following report. Aaron Brown of CNN reported on April 5 that John Paul II’s death was “slow and painful.” He also confirmed that John Paul II did not say “Amen,” because he was unable to speak at all.
AARON BROWN,
CNN ANCHOR: “… The pope's doctor gave an
interview to an Italian newspaper. In that interview he said, quote,
"The pope passed away slowly, with pain and suffering which he
endured with great human dignity." And
then the doctor added that for the last couple of days, the pope was in fact
unable to speak at all.
So whatever last words there were -- and
I think there's been, since we arrived here now on Saturday, great speculation
as to what his last words may or may not have been and whether in fact he said
amen, which was how it was originally reported -- whatever it was that was said was said several days, two days perhaps,
before he in fact died.” (Click here for link to
the official transcript to prove this)
This refutes the heretic’s claim above and just confirms again that John Paul II died, just like Alcimus, completely unable to speak and with pain and suffering.
Question 52 –
Can a Catholic pray for the soul of a deceased heretic such as Antipope John Paul
II?
Many are praying for John Paul II’s soul at traditional chapels and in their homes. Can this be done?
MHFM: No, a Catholic cannot pray publicly or privately for those who die as non-Catholics in the external forum. The following is an e-mail that we sent to a list of “traditionalists” who were promoting that you could pray for John Paul II.
The Catholic Church goes by the external forum. Thus, if an apostate such as John Paul II gave no evidence of conversion in the external forum - and John Paul II gave none - then he is presumed to have died as he lived (as a non-Catholic) and therefore to have been damned. No Catholic can pray for him. The Catholic Church only prays for the faithfully departed. Those who say that John Paul II can be prayed for contradict the practice of the Church.
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”
The great St. Francis Xavier shows how a Catholic must
affirm that all those who die outside the Church are definitely lost, as he
does in regard to a pagan privateer who died on a ship on which he was
traveling. Notice that the great St. Francis doesn’t hesitate to say that
this poor fellow had been cast into Hell.
St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.” (The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier by Henry James Coleridge, S.J. Originally published: London: Burns and Oates, 1874 Second Reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2004, Vol. 2, p. 281.)
A Catholic cannot pray privately for the repose of the soul of a deceased non-Catholic (who gave no evidence of conversion in the external forum) for the same reason that a Catholic cannot pray publicly for the repose of his soul: it is a scandal to the Faith. It is a scandal to the Faith of those who would pray privately for him because it gives the impression – and creates the mindset – that those who die outside communion with the Church can be saved, which is heresy. If one can pray privately for a deceased heretic who gave no evidence of conversion, then one can pray privately for the repose of the souls of Martin Luther, Adolph Hitler and Stalin; but this is obviously false and a scandal to the Faith.
Question 51 – Question about the obelisk in
the Vatican and the possible destruction of Rome?
Brother Michael and Brother Peter,
Do you know why Vatican Square has an obelisk? I thought it was a symbol of
freemasonry. I believe it
has been there for centuries.
I guess JPII is struggling to stay alive as he doesn't want to go back to hell.
The more I hear these tributes to him, the more I'm convinced that he is in
fact the Antichrist. What next do you think? I was reading the Apocalypse and
it says that the ten kings rule for an hour after the beast. I take an
"hour" in Biblical terms to be an extremely short time, say perhaps
days, like the time a conclave would last.
I really can't believe that the Vatican II church will just continue to go on
with another "pope". Do you see
the actual physical destruction of Rome prior to the very end? This seems to me
to be alluded to in the
Apocalypse as well, when everyone laments that Babylon is fallen.
Bridget
MHFM: There is an obelisk (a Masonic Symbol) in the Vatican, but there is a Cross on top of it that was put there by Pope Sixtus V, symbolizing the Church’s victory over paganism/Freemasonry. Many Protestant heretics have attempted to use this against the Church to show that the Church is Freemasonic; but they fail to note the Cross on top of the obelisk. The heretic Ralph Epperson really went on about this in one of his videos, so I faxed him a copy of the picture of it with the Cross on top of it:
“The Pope [Sixtus V] had a bronze cross placed on top of the obelisk bearing on its base the following inscription: ‘Behold the Cross of the Lord! Depart ye hostile powers! The Lion of the tribe of Juda hath prevailed! Christ conquers, Christ is King, Christ is Emperor! May Christ protect His people from all evil!” (Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 488.)
Regarding your question about the next conclave, we were thinking the same thing. Our Lady of La Salette predicts that “pagan Rome will disappear.” I don’t know; but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the entire city is wiped out while the Novus Ordo “Cardinals” are in conclave. If that does not occur, and if they elect one of the apostate Novus Ordo “Cardinals” who accepts Vatican II, then of course he will also be an Antipope.
Question
50 – Does such a website uphold Outside the Church There is No Salvation?
[the website states:] The doctrinal phrase [Outside the Church There is No Salvation] was not
originally directed against non-Catholics AS INDIVIDUALS, but against heretical
sects insofar as they are sects. Its purpose is to safeguard the
truth that there is only ONE body of Christ and, therefore, only ONE Church
that which possesses and communicatesthe fullness of the blessings brought to
men by Christ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Haenny
Indiana
MHFM: Thank you for your question. The website to which you refer rejects Outside the Church There is No Salvation the way the Church has defined it. Notice that what it states above is exactly the opposite of the truth. It states: “The doctrinal phrase [Outside the Church There is No Salvation] was not originally directed against non-Catholics AS INDIVIDUALS, but against heretical sects insofar as they are sects.” This is actually just the opposite of the truth. The dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is directed against non-Catholics as individuals. It declares that every single individual who dies outside the Church and without the Catholic Faith is lost.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Notice that this definition concerns individuals; it doesn’t mention their religions. But heretics like Fr. Moderator want to assert that it concerns sects, not individuals, because they believe that individual Jews, pagans, schismatics and heretics can be saved. This is the root heresy of the Great Apostasy, and it is rampant among “traditionalists.” The fact that this heresy is the root heresy of the Great Apostasy was shown again in a debate a few years ago in The Remnant on Sedevacantism, between the apostate “Fr.” Brian Harrison and Fr. Cekada. Fr. Cekada was arguing that the Vatican II Antipopes are not Popes because they are, among other things, guilty of heresy. He did a poor job of providing the heresies of which they are guilty, but one he did mention is that they and Vatican II reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation. But because Fr. Cekada also rejects Outside the Church There is No Salvation – and holds with Fr. Moderator that individual non-Catholics can be saved – it was more difficult for him to prove his claim. Look at this exchange and see my point proven:
“Fr.” Brian Harrison, debate with Cekada on
Sedevacantism: “In regard to the first condition, Fr. Cekada claimed that John Paul
II has denied the dogma “outside the Church, no salvation.” I replied that
neither Father nor his website articles have demonstrated any clear denial of
that dogma. (Like him, I invite readers to study those articles and to judge
for themselves, in the light of my criticisms.) The truth is that, according to Vatican II and John Paul II,
non-Catholics possessing the virtues of faith, hope and charity are not in fact
“outside” the Church as such, but only outside her “visible confines” (or
“boundaries”, or “structures”). Such persons are considered to be in ‘partial
communion’ with the Church.”
Fr. Cekada attempted to respond; but it was more difficult for him to refute Harrison’s nonsense simply because Cekada agrees with Harrison that individual non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. Here was his response:
Fr. Cekada in response: “Fr. Harrison defends this by appealing to pre-Vatican II teaching on salvation for someone who adheres to the Church by “a certain unconscious desire or will.’ Here Fr. Harrison commits the fallacy of “ingnoratio elenchi” — arguing apples instead of oranges. The traditional teaching concerned individuals. The Vatican II teaching makes a heretical or schismatic sect a “means of salvation” used by the Holy Ghost. It is this heresy that Paul VI professed.”
We see that Fr. Cekada is admitting that individual non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and thus undermining his own argument. He claims this was the “pre-Vatican II” teaching. Yes, it was the pre-Vatican II teaching of heretical priests and theologians who paved the way for Vatican II. It was not the pre-Vatican II teaching of the Catholic Church; just the opposite was. But in admitting that individual non-Catholics can be saved – the same heresy held by Harrison – he undermines his argument that Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II reject Outside the Church There is No Salvation. We can see this clearly in the weakness of his response.
Nonetheless, Vatican II is so heretical that even though Fr. Cekada also denies the dogma, he is still able to prove that it denies the dogma! This is because the post-Vatican II sect not only teaches that individual non-Catholics can be saved, but also that heretical sects are a means of salvation, which even Cekada rejects. Therefore, Cekada was still able to show that Vatican II denies Outside the Church There is No Salvation even though he denies it himself, and even though his argument was drastically weakened. All of this should show us two things: 1) The pre-Vatican II heresy that individual non-Catholics can be saved was a short step away from the Vatican II apostasy; it was, in my opinion, its root cause. 2) The post-Vatican II teaching that heretical sects are a means of salvation is so heretical that even those who deny the dogma themselves can condemn it as a denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Question 49 – Question about the Abomination of Desolation and the
Eastern Rites?
Dear Brothers, I have one question for you. In your earlier literature you mentioned this quote:
The Abomination Occupies the Western Wing
|
The Apostate Jews and the Abomination of Desolation occupied the “Large Western Wing” of the City |
The Abomination of Desolation occupies the Large Western Wing of the Church, the Roman Rite; as opposed to the Eastern Rites, which don’t have the Novus Ordo |
My question is... at this point in time, haven't some of these Eastern Rites adopted the Novus Ordo?
Thanks you and God bless.
Barbara
MHFM: No, the Eastern Rites have not adopted the Novus Ordo. So the Abomination of Desolation, the New Mass, occupies the Large Western Wing of the Vatican II sect. But most of the Eastern Rite priests do accept, to one degree or another, the Vatican II heresies. In fact, many of the Eastern Rite priests we’ve spoken with are basically Eastern Orthodox and reject Papal Infallibility or have no problem with the Eastern Orthodox. Those priests are notorious heretics and should be avoided. The only Eastern Rite priests whose Masses one could possibly attend are those who are not notorious about their heresies, which would be very few and far between today; those would be priests who oppose false ecumenism and think that non-Catholics should be converted, and don’t really say much if anything about Vatican II or John Paul II; they simply don’t care enough about the issues or lack the courage to see the truth that Vatican II and John Paul II are not Catholic. But if they are not opposed to false ecumenism, and if they don’t reject the Eastern “Orthodox,” and if they don’t believe that we should convert non-Catholics, then they are notoriously heretical and should be avoided. But even if you find one that is not notorious about his heresies, you absolutely cannot financially support him in any way since he still accepts Vatican II and John Paul II.
Question
48 – What is the Church’s teaching on the Schiavo case?
Dear Brothers Diamond,
What would be the Catholic Church's position in the Terri Schiavo's case in the matter of removing her feeding tube? Please discuss.
God bless. C. Vicencio
MHFM: The Church’s teaching is that simple food and hydration must always be given if it can be given, even if it is through a feeding tube. Thus, those who have withdrawn Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube are guilty of the sin of murder, as well as his lawyers and the judges who ordered it done. Further, those who are familiar with the case and defend the withdrawal of the food and hydration – such as media commentators, etc. – as well as the police officers who prevented people from bringing her water, are accomplices in murder. (The police officers would have to tell their superiors that they cannot serve on the scene and prevent people from bringing her water.)
That being said, one must make a note about the Schindler family (Terri’s parents and siblings). Unfortunately, despite their claim to be Catholic, this family is not even remotely Catholic, but totally heretical. They are obviously adherents of the Vatican II religion, and recently, they actually called the apostate, pro-abortionist Jesse Jackson to come to Florida to pray with them! This was obviously done with the hope that he could mobilize liberals to help their case and to work to save their daughter. But this could never be done, even under pain of death. This is a mortal sin, and it is something that Saints and martyrs would have died before doing. They are putting their daughter’s life above Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith by praying with Jesse Jackson. They are stating that the Catholic Faith is meaningless, that the abortion issue is meaningless, and they are acknowledging this apostate fraud – who is one of the most loathsome men in the country who claims to be a Protestant Minister – as a “Reverend.” It is actually very selfish, because they are willing to compromise the abortion issue (and thus other human lives) by praying with Jesse Jackson to help their daughter. This story just encapsulates the falsity of the Vatican II religion, as (apparently) none of their Novus Ordo “priests” have told them that they cannot do this, and we see their apostate spiritual director (Brother Paul) calling the non-Catholic layman Jesse Jackson the “Reverend”!
By the way, why do the media organs give so much air time to people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Does anyone really care what these apostates think, anyway? Why is it that, when they hold some rally, it’s major news? The answer is that our controlled media sees them as useful, so it gives them a voice and makes their opinions significant; if it weren’t for the media, no one would care what these abominable phonies think – who completely adulterate the words of Christ while claiming to be His ministers.
Question 47 – Can a Catholic
celebrate Easter and holiday dinners with non-Catholics: Protestants, Novus
Ordo, etc.?
Can one celebrate Eastern dinner with Novus Ordo relatives?
MHFM: No, a Catholic must not celebrate Easter or Christmas dinners or any other holiday dinners with non-Catholics, not Protestants, not those who go to the Novus Ordo and not those “traditionalists” who are actually heretics or are supporting heretical groups. A Catholic cannot pray with such people; and he should not go to their homes or have them at his for holidays. If a young person lives with heretical parents, then he obviously could eat a meal with them, but he should not pray with them. He should come in after they pray.
The reason that one cannot celebrate holiday dinners with heretics or those holding heretical views is that it gives them the clear impression that you regard them as people who hold the true Faith, which is a lie. It also gives them the impression that you respect their religious views and are in communion with them. Hence, it would be scandalous to celebrate holiday dinners with members of the Novus Ordo or false traditionalists or Protestants, unless the people are in the process of conversion.
Also, refusing to celebrate holiday dinners with such persons gives Catholics another opportunity to share with these heretics why they should not be doing or believing what they are doing or believing. For instance, if a Catholic is invited to celebrate Easter dinner at the home of his Novus Ordo friends, he must refuse and charitably explain to them that he cannot celebrate Easter with them as long as they accept this false Mass and the Vatican II religion. That is true charity, and that is why Catholics cannot celebrate holidays with heretics.
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).”
Question 46 – An objection concerning the upside down cross over John
Paul II’s head
I have noticed that you posted that Pope John Paul II
has a "Satanic" symbol on the chair of Saint Peter. This is not true.
The upside down cross represents the cross that Saint Peter was martyred on…
Zackary Smith
MHFM: Zackary, your assertion that the upside down cross above John Paul II’s head was in honor of St. Peter is pure nonsense. We are aware of the tradition that St. Peter was crucified upside down; and we were aware of it before we used John Paul II sitting in the chair with an upside down cross over his head as the cover for issue #5 of our magazine. Liberal after liberal has attempted to justify Antipope John Paul II’s incredible action of sitting in a chair with a large upside down cross over his head by bringing this up; but the argument doesn’t work. St. Peter has numerous Feast Days in the Calendar. The day that John Paul II sat with the upside cross over his head was not any one of the Feast Days dedicated to St. Peter, and nothing was mentioned about commemorating St. Peter. The Catholic Church does not have bishops or Cardinals or Popes sitting with upside down crosses over their heads. Rather, the upside down cross is one of the symbols most frequently used by Satanists. To further prove the point, Zackary, let me ask you: would you put an upside cross over your door? I didn’t think so. Those of bad will always will have some excuse, because they refuse to see the truth that John Paul II is totally evil; but those of good will – with eyes to see – know why John Paul II appears with an upside down cross over his head, without any explanation whatsoever. It is the same reason he says the following in his first homily:
Antipope
John Paul II, Very First Homily, Forever Marking the Beginning of his Pastoral
Ministry, Sunday, Oct. 22, 1978: “‘1. You
are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt. 16:16). These words were spoken by Simon, son of
Jonah, in the district of Caesarea Philippi…These words mark the beginning of
Peter’s mission in the history of salvation…
“2. On this day and in this place these same
words must again be uttered and listened to: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Yes, Brothers and sons and daughters, these
words first of all….please listen once again, today, in this sacred place, to
the words uttered by Simon Peter. In
those words is the faith of the Church. In those same words is the new truth,
indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man: the Son of the
living God – ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Question 45 – A
comment and an update on the E-discussion
Patricia Culver
MHFM: Thanks, we’re glad that you liked it. On March 12, 2005, Mr. Suprenant wrote back but did not address any of the points that I brought up to refute his claims. Here is his response:
Dear Mr. Dimond,
Peace of Christ!
I apologize for not responding to you earlier.
I maintain a correspondence with a wide range of people. I wish sometimes Our Lord would multiply my time as He did the loaves and fishes so that I could give satisfactory responses to everybody. As it is, given my responsibilities as a husband and father, as well as my other responsibilities and commitments, I sometimes have to assess whether I can give certain correspondents enough time to make it worthwhile for everyone concerned.
I would have to write a book to address all the various issues you raise in this last email. And even if I (or better yet, someone more patient, knowledgable, and scholarly than I) were to write such a tome, it doesn't seem at this point that you're open to the truth in this matter. So I'd be spending a lot of time only to have you dismiss what I say. If I'm misjudging the situation, I apologize. That does seem to be the case from my perspective, though.
The bottom line is that I cannot accept the proposterous [sic] accusations you make against the Pope and against the Bishop of Buffalo. Nor can I accept your personal, aberrant interpretations of Church and papal documents. By your own words you demonstrate that you are a schismatic and thus no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a tragedy and a most serious matter. And by publicizing your views on your website, you are also giving grave scandal to others who might be taken in by your sophistry.
I will continue to pray that you will repent of your positions and manifest the fidelity and obedience to the Vicar of Christ on earth that is demanded of anyone who professes to be a Catholic.
Sincerely in Christ,
Leon Suprenant
MHFM: No, Mr. Suprenant, you are a schismatic, a complete heretic and an apostate who is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church. You are in communion with a man who thinks false religions are good; who rejects the Council of Trent; who holds that the Old Covenant is valid; who believes in salvation outside the Church; who rejects converting schismatics; and who praises false religions constantly, just to name a few. You are in communion with the worst schismatic in Church history; you are therefore a schismatic.
Antipope John Paul II, Address to President of Romania, Sept. 30, 2004: “A pilgrim of faith and hope, I was warmly and enthusiastically welcomed by you and by the State Authorities, by His Beatitude Patriarch Teoctist and by all the people of the venerable Orthodox Church of Romania.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 20, 2004, p. 4)
Notice also
that Mr. Suprenant says: “The bottom
line is that I cannot accept the proposterous [sic] accusations you make against
the Pope and against the Bishop of Buffalo.”
Yes, I know, you just cannot bring yourself to believe the truth because
you have no divine Faith whatsoever in Jesus Christ or the Office of the
Papacy. You are just enamored with
Antipope John Paul II, and living in that bastion of apostasy near
Steubenville, Ohio. So, you just dismiss
all of John Paul II’s apostasy as simply unbelievable and impossible. Unfortunately, you have decided to that you
will just ignore the truth and continue in your false religion on the path to
Hell.
Question 44 – Can one attend the New Mass
for any reason, such as Confirmation ceremony, funeral, etc.
Dear Bro Michael and Bro Peter:
What am I supposed to do here? Should I accept or deny their request to be a godmother for my Novus Ordo niece in confirmation in May 2005.
I am afraid that during or after the confirmation they will have New Mass or new ritual according to Vatican. How can I handle this? This is my favorite niece but I am sorry and confused here. Help! Please.
Kim (Texas)
MHFM: Kim, a Catholic absolutely cannot be the Sponsor for the Novus Ordo “Confirmation” and cannot attend it or the New Mass for any reason, not funerals, not weddings, nothing. A Catholic cannot attend an abomination, a false Mass which adulterates the words of Christ for any reason. You should tell your niece why you cannot be her Sponsor. If you haven’t done so already, you should explain to her in charity that the Novus Ordo is a false Mass and that the Vatican II religion is not the true religion. You need to tell her that the changes made to the Sacrament of Confirmation cause it to be highly doubtful. But even if it were surely valid, you still could not be the Sponsor because your niece is attending the New Mass and is affiliated with the Vatican II religion.
Your question brings to my mind the heretical compromise of the SSPX. I knew a supporter of the SSPX very well and he had the same issue come up with his Novus Ordo nephew’s Confirmation. The SSPX priest told him that he could attend the New Mass and be the Sponsor at the dubious Confirmation ceremony. This reveals again the dark compromise of the SSPX.
Question 43 – So what were the changes that Paul VI made to the Sacrament of Confirmation?
But what changes did Paul VI make to the Sacrament of Confirmation?
MHFM: As we said in our video, Paul VI changed the rite of every single 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 the form that is
used in the Eastern Rites. Why would
Paul VI replace the traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form for 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 is 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 by the Bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form. But in the New Rite of Paul VI, even though the Eastern Rite form is used, the words are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, thus rendering it highly doubtful.
Conclusion: All changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful.
Dear Dimond Brothers,
Why even bother to try to be holy when the statistics of entrance to heaven are overwhelmingly against you? Why try and continually fail and end up in hell anyway? Why not just be evil and accept you are damned?
David
MHFM: First of all, even if there were a .0000001% chance of avoiding Hell, we would have to do everything in our power to avoid it, since the punishment is incomprehensibly horrible.
“And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night…” (Apoc. 14:11)
“And shall cast them into the furnace of
fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt. 13:42)
Considering what Hell is, we can see that deciding to accept Hell because the “odds are against you” is not a wise option. But the truth is that it is not that hard to avoid Hell.
“Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.” (Mt. 11:29-30)
It is not hard to avoid Hell. One must simply accept what God says and not deny it by heresy; not compromise the Faith; keep a strong prayer life and a true devotion to Mary; and avoid mortal sin; etc. But why do people have to deny what God says? Why do they have to lie and say things are not heresy when they are? Why do they have refuse to accept what He says (that no one can be saved who dies a non-Catholic) because they don’t want to see it God’s way? Why do they commit fornication or look at pornography? Why do they continue to throw donations to heretics after they know they shouldn’t? Why do they do their utmost to carefully avoid having children while using the marriage act? Why do they fail to tell the truth about what is happening because some people will be offended? Why do they spend their lives engaged in countless hours of worthlessness but cannot spare enough time to pray the Rosary or read a spiritual book? Those who commit mortal sin deserve to go to Hell, but the infinite tragedy and folly of most human lives is that they put themselves in a position to deserve it.
Why can’t they put out a little more effort for the Faith, souls and God by praying the 15 decade Rosary (if they spend all day at home, as many traditional Catholics do)? It is not hard to avoid Hell. It just requires a little effort and good will, which unfortunately – and through their own fault – is lacking in almost all people.
In the sermon below, St. Leonard of Port Maurice explains how it is the consistent teaching of the theologians and fathers that most adult Catholics are lost. It should be noted that he is not including those who die as non-Catholics, all of whom are lost, nor baptized Catholic infants who die before the age of reason, all of whom are saved. His subject matter concerns adult Catholics from hundreds of years ago (well before modern paganism and the Vatican II apostasy) – which would be comparable to traditional Catholics today – and he still shows that the consistent teaching is that the majority of that group is damned. (Note: In the sermon below, St. Leonard, as many Saints of his time, uses the word “Christians” to describe Catholics.)
St. Leonard of Port Maurice, On the Fewness of the Saved, 1751: “First let us consult the theologians recognized as examining things most carefully and as not exaggerating in their teaching: let us listen to two learned cardinals, Cajetan and Bellarmine. They teach that the greater number of Christian [Catholic] adults are damned, and if I had the time to point out the reasons upon which they base themselves, you would be convinced of it yourselves. But I will limit myself here to quoting Suarez. After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he wrote, "The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls."
Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone.
Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned." The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."
The Words of Holy Scripture
But why seek out the opinions of the Fathers and theologians, when Holy Scripture settles the question so clearly? Look in to the Old and New Testaments, and you will find a multitude of figures, symbols and words that clearly point out this truth: very few are saved. In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, "This ark was the figure of the Church," while Saint Augustine adds, "And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark."
The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat.
I would not finish if I had to point out all the figures by which Holy Scripture confirms this truth; let us content ourselves with listening to the living oracle of Incarnate Wisdom. What did Our Lord answer the curious man in the Gospel who asked Him, "Lord, is it only a few to be saved?" Did He keep silence? Did He answer haltingly? Did He conceal His thought for fear of frightening the crowd? No. Questioned by only one, He addressed all of those present. He says to them: "You ask Me if there are only few who are saved?" Here is My answer: "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." Who is speaking here? It is the Son of God, Eternal Truth, who on another occasion says even more clearly, "Many are called, but few are chosen." He does not say that all are called and that out of all men, few are chosen, but that many are called; which means, as Saint Gregory explains, that out of all men, many are called to the True Faith, but out of them few are saved. Brothers, these are the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they clear? They are true. Tell me now if it is possible for you to have faith in your heart and not tremble.”
Question 41 – Help with a debate against a Vatican II apostate
This is an invitation for you to respond to this gentleman, Mr. B.. We are engaging in a debate and I have used some of your sources to back up my claims. - Matt
[Mr. B. Writes]:
Matt, Once again, Dimond has mistated and misrepresented the teachings of
Pope John Paul II. I hope, Matt, that in addition to reading Dimond's
"arguments" that you also read the documents he attempts to
contradict.
1. I defer this point until a further time as I cannot find any copies of
"A Voice Crying in the Wilderness"
2. FALSE. Christ, by dying on the cross, poured forth from the font of his
Church sanctifying grace. And the waters of
salvation, as Jesus told the Samarian woman at the well, is one by which after
drinking men will never thirst again. Any
one may go to that well and drink and gain entrance (which means to fulfill all
duties and obligations to the Church) into the Church and therefore salvation.
Christ indeed is united to all men, not in the sense that Dimond so haphazardly
ascribes, but in the sense that Christ died so that whole world might be saved
(John 3:16). Upon close reading of Dimond's cited sources, it is obvious that
he is providing only a truncated picture. Salvation is available to all, not
that all are preemptively saved.
3. FALSE. The Pope obviously makes reference to the actual graces of God, which
are always present in the world with all people, pushing them closer to the
true Church of Christ.
4. FALSE. This is not stated in the paragraph cited by Dimond.
5. FALSE. The Gospels tell how God, in the form of a man, came down upon earth,
was scourged, mocked, and nailed to the cross for the salvation of men. Indeed,
the whole point of Christ's descent from heaven was to save men and to draw
them to God and perfection that is necessary to enter heaven. How much man must
be worth to the Father that he would send his Son to die for us. Indeed, we
must be worth
something.
And so on and so forth, I could continue on refuting all 42 of these supposed
indictments against the Pope but I haven't the time at this moment. I will put
this aside for now and turn my attention to "John Paul II is
Anti-Christ". Which, as you have stated, is the most convincing argument
for you. I will now turn my attention to said essay. Expect my attack
soon.
MHFM: It seems that he is trying to respond to
our proof that John Paul II teaches universal salvation. Since I cannot really make out specifically
what he is referring to, I will simply quote a few things which again refute
this heretic:
Antipope John
Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985:
“The Eucharist is the sacrament
of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is
eternal. This is the covenant which
embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”
(L' Osservatore Romano, July 1, 1985, p. 3.)
This is quite clear that all
men are saved. In contrast with this,
the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church affirms that the blood of Christ
does not reach all or save all.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died
for all, yet not all receive the benefit
of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion
is communicated.”
Antipope John Paul II, Homily, April 27, 1980:
“… Jesus makes us, in himself,
once more sons of his Eternal Father. He obtains, once and for all, the salvation
of man: of each man and of all…”
Antipope John Paul II, Redemptor
Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979:
“We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery
of the Redemption and with each one Christ
has united Himself forever through this mystery.”
Antipope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990:
“The Redemption event brings
salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption
and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this
mystery.’”
Antipope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (# 53):
“We are not dealing here with
man in the ‘abstract,’ but with the real, ‘concrete,’ ‘historical’ man. We are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of the
Redemption and through this mystery Christ has
united himself with each one forever.”
Here we see John Paul II
repeatedly teaching that all men are united with Christ forever. This means that all men are saved, since Hell
is eternal separation from Christ; only those who are saved are united with
Christ forever. Also worthy of pointing
out to him is the fact that John Paul II teaches that Christ is united with each
man literally hundreds of times, yet not once in the context of these countless
statements does he say that such a union can be lost. But to
silence this particular heretic, it is sufficient to quote the following:
Antipope John
Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27,
1978:
“Jesus is the
Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human
nature and therefore the whole of
humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in
‘divine life’ by means of Grace.” (L’Osservatore
Romano, Jan. 1, 1979, p. 8.)
This couldn’t be more
clear. Here Antipope John Paul II
explains that the whole of humanity has
been saved and is participating in the divine life. The
phrase “participating in the divine life” refers to the state of Justification
or the state of sanctifying grace (2 Peter 1:4). Therefore, by saying that
all of humanity participates in the divine life, Antipope John Paul II is
clearly saying that all of humanity is in the state of grace. No one is in mortal or original sin. Nothing could be more clear. You should quote this for the heretic, but he
(and the devil through him) will most certainly attempt to explain this one
away as well.
These heretics are like the
Jews who saw Lazarus raised from the dead by Our Lord, but instead of
believing, they wanted to kill Lazarus to prevent others from believing. They are like Pharao who saw miracle after
miracle worked before him, but still would not let the Hebrews go. They could literally see any type of heresy
or apostasy from John Paul II, and they would try to explain it away; and
unless they convert, they will have age after age – they will have all eternity
– in the never-ending fires of Hell to try to explain all of it away.
For instance, in a discussion
with a Vatican II apostate similar to the one you are describing, I quoted to
him the following passage from memory: I said that John Paul II teaches in Ut Unum Sint that Saints “come from all
the Churches and Ecclesial Communities…”
This is clear heresy, but of course the heretic attempted to explain
this away by saying, yes “they come from all the Churches,” meaning they can
convert from another Church, and then become Catholic and therefore become
Saints. Sorry, but John Paul II didn’t
say any of that. He said that the Saints
come from the other “Churches”; and that is clearly what he means since he
makes similar statements all the time, without ever stating that only those who
convert to the Catholic Church from other Churches become Saints.
But what was great about this
is that when I happened to look at the full quote again, after quoting it from
memory to this heretic, I discovered:
Antipope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:
“Albeit in an invisible way, the communion
between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly
grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life
faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These
saints come from all the Churches and
Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF
SALVATION.”
After looking again at the
full quote, I was reminded that John Paul II, directly after the part under
discussion, states that these non-Catholic “Churches” gave these “Saints” entrance into the communion of salvation! This proves without any doubt that we were
absolutely correct in our understanding of John Paul II’s statement; and
further, it proves that John Paul II is not only saying that the members of non-Catholic
Churches are “Saints,” but also that these non-Catholic “Churches” gave
them salvation! A good willed person
wouldn’t have needed this extra proof, but it is there to silence the heretics
nevertheless.
If I may make a suggestion
when debating with such apostates, I wouldn’t start with John Paul II’s
teaching of universal salvation, because the devil can get more creative in
trying to explain away the universal salvation issue. I would definitely bring it up, but I would
begin with his endorsement of false religions, and then work from there. Likewise, when debating with those who deny
the salvation dogma, I think it is better not to begin with the issue of the
salvation of a catechumen (which almost none of them limit themselves to), but always
begin with their idea that souls ignorant of Our Lord Jesus Christ – and who
are in false religions – can be saved without knowing Him or the Trinity.
Question 40 – Do traditional priests have Jurisdiction?
Some sedevacantists say that all jurisdiction is lost and that, furthermoe, there is no one to restore it. This would mean all confessions would be lacking jurisdiciton. However, canon law and discipline has a spirit, which supercede's it's grammar correct? That is, one could be pharisaical (spelling?) about following canon law and such, just as although the Sabbath was a day of rest, our Lord and His disciples could pluck food to feed themselves. In the same way, wouldn't the fact that there is no jusrisdiction, and no one to restore it, mean that God could allow it for all true Catholic priests or something like that? Or wouldn't that mean that God could allow it in the case of the indiviual. For instance, jurisdiction will be automatically allowed for even "Eastern Orthodox" priests to hear confessions in an emergency, so the same could apply to a universal emergency that we're in right? And wouldn't it seem a little presumptuous to state that all the cardinals, bishops, and priests lost jurisdiction? Since the first time someone publically seemed to call into question the validity of Paul VI was in the mid 70s right? Surely the whole Church couldn't have universally fallen out of existance at any one point, so couldn't there have been questioning bishops like Thuc or someone else who maybe had doubts and avoided really falling into heresy who could hypothetically have avoided losing jurisdiction, or other in the hierarchy? Sorry this is long; thanks!
MHFM: Regarding your question about jurisdiction, your inclination is correct. The people who claim that no traditional priests have jurisdiction (because they did not receive it directly from a Bishop who had ordinary jurisdiction under Pope Pius XII), such as the heretics Brian and Laura K., Barbara L., the heretic nuns from Clarksburg, Ohio, etc. simply don’t know what they are talking about. In their writings, you seem them constantly quoting disciplinary canons which are no longer in force from past ecumenical councils, and misunderstanding the nature of ecclesiastical law. In the following canons, we see the principle which refutes their claims taught.
Canon 872, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “For the valid absolution of sins, the minister requires, besides the power of Orders, either ordinary or delegated power of jurisdiction over the penitent.”
For a priest to validly absolve, he must have either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. But…
Canon 882, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “In danger of death all priests, though not approved for confessions, can validly and licitly absolve any penitent from any sins and censures, although reserved and notorious…”
Now, wait a second. Above, in Canon 872, we saw that all priests must have jurisdiction to validly absolve. This was also taught by the Council of Trent.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 7: “Therefore, since the nature and essence of a judgment require that the sentence be imposed only on subjects, there has always been the conviction in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it as most true, that this absolution which the priest pronounces upon one over whom he has no ordinary or delegated jurisdiction has no value.” (Denz. 904)
But Canon 882 teaches that priests who were never approved for Confessions (i.e. never given jurisdiction in the normal channel) can validly absolve anyone in danger of death. How’s that? The answer is that the jurisdiction (which the priest described in canon 882 has) is automatically delegated to him in necessity; i.e., it is automatically supplied to him even though he was never approved for it. This is a fact, and anyone who would deny it is a liar. And this fact totally blows away the claims of many “No Jurisdiction” heretics. They claim that a priest who has never received jurisdiction through the normal channels cannot have jurisdiction to validly absolve. This is completely wrong, as we can see from Canon 882. The priest has jurisdiction automatically delegated to him (i.e., automatically supplied to him) by the Church in necessity.
The “No Jurisdiction” heretics will respond that canon 882 only mentions “danger of death.” That is irrelevant to the principle and the point which I am proving, which they deny: namely, that a person who has never been approved for Confessions or received jurisdiction in the normal channel receives jurisdiction automatically from the Church. Once they admit this principle, as they must, their whole argument crumbles. Once they admit that priests never approved for Confessions can have jurisdiction automatically supplied to them in danger of death, their argument then becomes: “well, it cannot happen outside of danger of death.” But this again is clearly false and historically ridiculous.
Take the case of the Great Western Schism, for instance. During that time you had Bishops consecrated by Antipopes and false hierarchies which appeared to be the true Catholic hierarchy. Were all the Confessions of those priests under these Antipopes invalid, because neither a true Pope nor a real jurisdictional bishop approved them for Confessions? No, of course not. The Church again automatically delegated the jurisdiction for the benefit of the faithful in that case of massive confusion, which lasted almost 40 years. This proves that the principle at work in Canon 882 (supplied or automatically delegated jurisdiction) applies not only in danger of death, but in other situations as well.
Another good example would in the 1960’s. The “No Jurisdiction” heretics agree that John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) and Paul VI (Montini) were not true Popes. Since John XXIII and Paul VI were not true Popes, the Bishops whom they made Ordinaries were not true Ordinaries. Thus, the priests approved by those Bishops for Confessions were not truly approved and did not receive jurisdiction from an actual jurisdictional Bishop. The “No Jurisidiction” heretics would have to say that all the Confessions of the aforesaid priests in the 1960’s were invalid, even though basically no one on earth at that time recognized that John XXIII and Paul VI were not true Popes. But obviously this is completely wrong, as the Church supplied or automatically delegated the jurisdiction to those priests for the benefit of the faithful, just like the priest described in Canon 882. So again we see that the Church supplies or automatically delegates jurisdiction to priests who never received it in the normal channel.
Frankly, many of those who write for the “No Jurisidiction” position are driven by their own pride, which causes them to think they have figured it out that no priests have jurisdiction when the truth is they don’t understand the issue at all. Further, most of them believe that it’s possible for non-Catholics who don’t have the Catholic Faith to be saved. Thus, they strain out gnats (the jurisdiction issue) – about which they are actually completely wrong – and swallow camels (the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith).
Question 39 – Can one serve the altar at the SSPX?
Dear Brothers Dimond,
Since it is okay to attend an SSPX to get sacraments as long as the priest is not a notorious heretic, what about altar serving or assiting in the choir? Another question:
-S
MHFM: One definitely should not serve the altar at the SSPX. This is because in serving the altar one is directly assisting the priest who is praying in union with Antipope John Paul II and the apostate Novus Ordo Bishop.
Question 38 – What is
the meaning of the term material heretic?
Could you please define the term “Material Heretic”?
What is a material Heretic?
What is the difference between a material heretic and any other heretic?
Is a material heretic a catholic?
Can a material heretic be saved?
Your answer would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. God bless
Louis Blackwood
MHFM: A so-called “material heretic” is not a heretic, but a Catholic erring about a dogma. A good example is a person who believes that Jesus Christ has one will. I have asked many traditional Catholics whether Christ has one or two wills. 99% say that He has one will. That is wrong; it is actually heretical. It was condemned by Constantinople III. Christ has two wills (not in opposition), divine and human, because He has two natures. So, were these people heretics? No, because they changed their position as soon as I informed them of this dogma. [Note: if they had believed that Christ was not divine and human then they would have been heretics, since they would have been denying an essential mystery of Faith that all Catholics must hold, the Incarnation; but that was not the case.]
These people were Catholics erring about a dogma; they were holding a position that is heretical, but they were not heretics because they were not obstinate. So, to answer your questions: A so-called “material heretic” is not a heretic; a so-called “material heretic” is a Catholic; a so-called “material heretic” can be saved. To presume that a person is a real heretic who is holding a position that is heretical, one must simply demonstrate that the person has knowledge of the dogma that he is contradicting.
The fact that a so-called “material heretic” is not a heretic is proven by the fact that a so-called “material heretic” does not cease to be part of the Church; and all heretics cease to be members of the Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics …”
Furthermore, a so-called “material heretic” (an erring Catholic) does not bring down on his head eternal punishment for denying the faith; and all heretics bring down on their heads eternal punishment for denying the faith.
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.”
Thus, a so-called “material heretic” is not a heretic. That is why the dogmatic definitions of the Church never use the term. The Church only speaks of Catholics and heretics.
Question
37 – How can the New Mass be invalid if the Consecration of the Bread hasn’t
been changed?
I'm sorry you couldn't find the time to help me with my dilemma concerning the consecration of the bread and wine and what is necessary to realize transubstantiation... You might remember the problem. Is it possible to achieve transubstantiation if the form used to consecrate the bread is correct but the form used to consecrate the wine is defective? No one seems to know the answer but it must be out there someplace. Keep up your good work on behalf of the true Catholic Church.
Sincerely, John Arnold
MHFM: This is an important thing for people to understand. The words of the Consecration of the bread are: “This is My Body.” These words have not been changed in the Novus Ordo. The words of the Consecration of the wine are listed below, and these have been changed in the Novus Ordo. But it is a truth of Faith that, in a Mass, at the moment a priest says, “This is My Body,” transubstantiation occurs and the bread is changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. So wouldn’t this occur in the Novus Ordo as soon as the priest says, “This is My Body,” and before he even gets to the changed words for the Consecration of the wine? The answer is no, and here’s why: transubstantiation would not occur at that moment in the Novus Ordo because the bread can only be transubstantiated at that moment IF THE PRIEST HAS THE INTENTION TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439,
"Exultate Deo":
"All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the
matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the
sacrament with the intention of doing
what the Church does. If any of
these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Denz. 695)
What is the intention to do what the Church does? It is to use the complete form prescribed by the Church.
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.”
Pope Leo XIII teaches that a minister who uses the proper matter and form in effecting a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does. On the other hand, a minister who does not use the correct matter or form is not presumed to have intended to do what the Church does, but rather to have a defective intention.
In the New Mass, the minister does not use the form of the Church, which includes, “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 unto the remission of sins.” He uses a changed form, which alters the meaning of the Church’s form, and thus HE HAS A DEFECTIVE INTENTION AT THE VERY MOMENT HE SAYS, “THIS IS MY BODY.” Since this defective intention is present in such a priest at that very moment, nothing happens at that very moment in the New Mass.
And, contrary to a common mistake on this point, it doesn’t matter that the priest thinks he has a correct intention or believes in the Real Presence or wants to consecrate the Eucharist. Intention is not predicated on personal belief – which is why Eucharistic miracles have occurred in Church history for certain priests who did not believe in the Eucharist while celebrating Mass. The intention “to do what the Church does” means he must intend to use the true form of the Church and use the true form of the Church, which a minister using the Novus Ordo CANNOT do, since he has a changed and mutilated form which would make all men within the unity of the Mystical Body (the grace effected by the Eucharist). This defective intention (not using the form of the Church), which is present at the very moment the Novus Ordo priest says “This is My Body,” is why nothing happens at that moment in Novus Ordo; and it is why the change to the Consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo invalidates both consecrations.
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are
these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: 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 UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change
anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that
very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he
would not consecrate the sacrament."
Question 36 – Unmistakably Masonic
symbols on Paul VI’s mother’s funeral monument!
Hello
Thanks a lot for your website, which is both frigthtening and soul-saving,
since it offers excellent confirmation of what any authentic Catholic should
know or at least strongly suspect. I have been a Traditional Catholics for
about six years, and I am a member of FSPX (which I know now is not the only
source of remnant Truth, but this is another matter). Concerning your
photographs and other clues about post-Vatican II
"""popes""", have you heard that Montini's mother
was probably a freemason ? At any rate, unmistakable masonic symbols are
engraved on her funeral monument ; in fact, they are so blatant that
"someone" (probably the local
"""bishop""") had a wall built in front of it so
that nobody can see the truth by himself anymore.
With best regards. May God bless you !
François T.
(France)
MHFM: Thank you for your
e-mail.
That is very interesting. We
did not know that Paul VI’s mother had Freemasonic symbols on her funeral
monument, but it doesn’t surprise us.
The SSPX teaches that
souls can be saved in false religions and accepts Antipope John Paul II.
It also rejects the "Canonizations" of its “pope,” which is
schismatic. A Catholic cannot be a "member" of their group or
support them in any way.
Sincerely,
MHFM
Question 35 – Some important questions from
a new traditional Catholic?
Dear Brothers in Christ,
Thank you for your apostolate. It has been used by God to open my eyes to the error of the Vatican II Religion.
Just one year ago, at the Easter Vigil Mass (2004) I was received into the Church through the sacrament of Baptism and then given Confirmation and First Holy Communion. At long last, or so I thought, my 3-year struggle to convert was complete. I had given up literally everything to become Catholic, including an engagement and even my family and my home in order to pursue conversion. Yet I truly believed it was worth it all. I still believe it is.
I spent a year at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, where I came into the Church, and became involved in ministry. I was even a frequent altar server at Mass. Yet something was missing, there was an indefinable huger for something I couldn't name. Masses were "spirit filled," classes were challenging, and the entire student body seemed passionate about their faith. So why did everything seem empty? I couldn't help being drawn to Traditional Catholicism. I remember thinking, where are the stained-glass windows? Why isn't Mass more reverent? Why does the chapel look so barren? Why has the Holy Father worshiped alongside Buddists and Muslims? If my being independent, fundamental Baptist was "okay" and venerated by the Vatican II church, then couldn't I have saved myself the trouble of converting? It surly would have been more convenient! It seemed that the Church I had so fiercely fought to be joined with was becoming more Protestant and ecumenical by the minute.
A few weeks ago, a traditional friend of mine sent me a link to your site . Out of curiosity--and what I now recognize as prompting by the Holy Spirit--I read over most of the material. I have to say that I was very close to dismissing your claims as fabrications of traditionalist wackos. Honestly, they scared me. I was afraid to acknowledge the truth and the implications thereof. Most significantly, it would mean that I had given up everything only to join a heretical "Church" and was not in the True Church. Yet your arguments are undeniable. What you say is the unabashed truth. Anyone who looks at what you brothers present honestly will have to agree. After much research and prayers for strength and tenacity, I can now say that I am a Traditional Catholic. I want to be a part of the True Roman Catholic Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ.
Thanks to your apostolate, my life has been changed, and I pray that more people will come to see the Truth as well. May God continue to bless and keep you, and may Our Lady protect you.
In Christ,
Joslyn
PS) I do have a couple of questions. 1) Were the sacraments I received valid? Baptism, confirmation, and first Holy Communion. 2) What would you recommend to me, as a new Traditional Catholic?
MHFM: It's great to hear about your story. You make an excellent point when you notice:
>>>>Why has the Holy Father worshiped alongside Buddists and Muslims? If my being independent, fundamental Baptist was "okay" and venerated by the Vatican II church, then couldn't I have saved myself the trouble of converting? It surly would have been more convenient! >>>>
You are exactly correct. If John Paul II is the Pope – and the Vatican II “Church” is the Catholic Church – then we would all be idiots to bother being Catholic, since his sect venerates every false religion and every Protestant sect on earth.
To answer your questions:
1) Your baptism was valid if water was poured on your skin [and it moved] while the minister said "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." If you are not sure, then a conditional baptism should be done. The conditional form of baptism is: If you are baptized, I do not baptize you again, but if you are not baptized [and then pour water on the head and say] I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. A person may have a Catholic friend who is knowledgeable and responsible perform a conditional baptism in this situation.
2) Your confirmation and First Holy Communion were not valid, since the Novus Ordo has altered those sacraments in invalidating ways.
3) You should make the profession of Faith from the Council of Trent on our website near the bottom. This is also an abjuration, and it is the Profession of Faith for converts. If there were specific dogmas which you denied, such as Outside the Church There is No Salvation, you should add to the abjuration that you reject anything contrary to that dogma.
4) You should confess to a validly ordained priest (a priest ordained in the Traditional Rite) that you had attended a non-Catholic service (for however long you did), and that you contributed money, and any mortal sins (if any) that may have been confessed to Novus Ordo “priests” ordained in the New Rite.
5) Probably the three most important books that we recommend people to get are: The Secret of the Rosary; True Devotion to Mary; and Preparation for Death (abridged version), all of which are available from Tan Books (1-800-437-5876).
6) I would pray the Rosary each day, all 15 decades if you can.
We hope everything goes well. If we can be of any further assistance, let us know.
God bless,
MHFM
Question 34 – Question about Mysterium Fidei; many to all; and
traditional bishops?
Dear Brothers,
I am not a sedavacantist Catholic at the moment. I do however find the present situation in the church very troubling.I hope you do not mind answering these two questions which I have or perhaps showing me where the answers are if you have already answered them. As regards the Novus Ordo in english I find the change disturbing from many to all. I do not know eneogh so i am researching the subject. Except for the ommision of "Mystery of Faith" what is you opinion regarding the essential validity or invalidity of the novus ordo in Latin? Or does the ommision make it invalid?
Considering we believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, Where are the Bishops of the Church now, If Paul VI was an invalid pope then his consecration rites promulgated were invalid, then the vast majority of Novus Ordo bishops were consecrated invalidly, what happens to the Apostolic Church when the last Bishop consecration in the Old Rite Dies? Then there will be no more licit or valid Bishops, then the church ceases to exist.
Only a year ago, I was a Novus Ordo, so I am extremely thankful to God for bringing me out of that, However since in those days I defended the Church against protestants, I find it hard to see where the Church is today if sedavacantists are right.
God Bless, Paul
MHFM: Paul, the change from many to all absolutely invalidates the New Mass, as the short article near the top of our site proves. The removal of mysterium fidei causes grave doubt, since these words were instituted by Christ according to the Canon of the Mass and Pope Innocent III.
Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of "mysterium fidei" (found in Denz. 414-415): "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed... In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "mysterium fidei," is found interposed among His words... Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed... Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."
There are so many independent traditional bishops who have been consecrated that there will always be some around. Nevertheless, St. Athanasius says, “Even if the true Church of Christ were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”
Question 33 – A comment and why don’t you
debate the Novus Ordo types?
Dear Bro. Dimond:
I really enjoyed reading your response to apostate leon suprenant. It sure
slapped his papolatrous and lying face. I firmly believe that you guys
could do a better job in winning souls for Christ by attacking and debating
with fake catholic papolaters than non-sedevacantist traditionalists. I mean,
God's ultimate crucifiers nowadays are fake catholics, so why not take the time
to attack those abominable anti-traditionalist bashers just like what you did
to judas leon suprenant?
MHFM: Thanks for the comment. I must admit that it feels good to know that others can also see the incredible dishonesty of these heretics. How about him arguing that John Paul II didn’t approve the Balamand Statement in toto, for which he provided no proof! Like it would matter, anyway, since John Paul II consistently rejects proselytizing the schismatics! What a joke – which is my vernacular way of saying “what an outrage”! Or how about him rewriting the definition of proselytism! These defenders of John Paul II are just liars, in addition to apostates.
Or how about him appealing to the “Annex” attached to the Joint Declaration on Justification because he hoped or thought I wasn’t familiar with it, and he probably didn’t even know that it teaches Justification “by faith alone.” That is exactly what the apostate James Likoudis did.
Regarding debating with the “papolaters,” we actually might have a debate coming up with one of them. Our readers might find this interesting: In our discussion with this man whom we may debate we shared with him Paul VI’s incredible statement that “Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia.” Do you think he thought it was heresy? No, of course not; this man said it isn’t heresy. You could just hear him working to think of a way to explain it away – with Satan surely prompting him on. He began by saying that a Buddhist can do a good thing, and that such a thing could be called “a rich.” He then said that if they do that good thing because of their religion, then Buddhism could be a rich. Sorry, Mr. Apostate, but in that case only the work done by the Buddhist would be the rich; but the apostate Paul VI was talking about the religion of Buddhism– a false religion –not some of the things that may be done by people in it. A false religion is not a rich; to assert that it is is blasphemy. So, even with Satan’s help, this apostate cannot explain away this clear-cut apostasy, and he sinned mortally by obstinately defending it; but, of course, he wasn’t convinced and thought that he had refuted us! What blinded fools. That is one of the worst punishments that God can send to someone, to blind him in the way that these heretics are blinded.
Question 32–What are the heresies of John
Paul II before his election?
Hi, I was wondering if you knew of any obvious heresies of JPII prior to "election". I know of… Sign of Contradiction, about the "2 day old having the promise...." whatever it said......Do you know of any other obvious heresy in "Sign of Contradiction" or anything else?
MHFM: For those who don’t know, I will quote John Paul II’s heresy in Sign of Contradiction that we exposed in issue #4 of our magazine.
Prior to his “election” in 1978, John Paul II wrote the book, Sign of Contradiction. It consists of a series of retreats given by the then “Cardinal” Wojtyla in 1976. On page 160 of Sign of Contradiction Antipope John Paul II teaches the heresy of universal salvation while denying Original Sin. The tone of his heretical ramblings in this book is very similar to what we find expressed in his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis.
Antipope John Paul II, Sign of Contradiction, p. 160: “According to the world’s statistics, thousands die every hour… But in this same reality, in this dimension of every dying person – be he a centenarian or two-day old infant – there remains present the promise, the ‘guarantee of our inheritance’ given to us in Christ, and in some way ‘mysteriously contained’ in the new life which, in human and world history, began with Christ… And this ‘making-new’, this new life, takes place in man. Every man… finally every man has inherent in him the mystery of a new life which Christ has brought and which he has grafted on to humanity. Every human death without exception has this dimension... As all men are sanctified ‘in Christ Jesus’ their death means a prolongation of this life ‘in Christ.’” (John Paul II, Sign of Contradiction, New York: The Seabury Press, 1979, p. 160.)
Not only does one detect here an astonishing announcement of universal salvation, but one will search in vain for a clearer denial of Original Sin. Antipope John Paul II asserts that in every “two-day old infant” there exists the new life in Christ. He further explains that in the death of “every man” we see the “prolongation of this life in Christ.”
What other heresies did he teach before his election? John Paul II signed and promoted all of the heresies of Vatican II well before his “election.”
Question 31–Cardinal Siri couldn’t lose his office under duress,
because Martin I also recognized an Antipope under physical duress
Re: Gregory VII ...Martin I, recognized a usurper, antipope Eugene I, yet retained office.
Dear Brothers:
[MHFM wrote] <Cardinal Siri may have been paralyzed by fear, uncertainty and confusion about his status and what to do about it; nevertheless one cannot recognize that he remained Pope in the years following his elections because, at least in the external forum, he did not stand up for his office or oppose the Antipopes.*>…
He knows nothing about Siri, what forced him aside, what conditions kept him on the sidelines for 31 years, nor the confusion in Siri’s own mind about his options, none of which were very good … If Siri forfeited the papacy, then so did Martin I, who, while he was a captive of the Monophysite emperor, recognized as legitimate the usurper, antipope Eugene I. But the eminent papal historian, Artaud de Montor, says that Martin could not have given up the See of Peter validly so long as he remained under duress. – just as with Siri.
JMJ, David H.
MHFM: You have misunderstood the case of Pope Martin and Pope Eugene I. First, it was the monothelite controversy, not the monophysite controversy. Second, let’s briefly look at the case of that glorious Pope St. Martin I, who was imprisoned and tortured by the monothelite heretics. While imprisoned, it was unknown what happened to Martin – whether he was dead or incapacitated.
“Not knowing exactly what happened to the Pope [Martin I], and fearing the worst – especially an attempt by the Emperor and the Exarch to impose a Monothelite as Pope – the clergy of Rome assembled in August 654, after Martin had been gone for more than a year, and elected as Pope Eugenius I, firmly orthodox and committed to resisting imperial interference in favor of heresy. But since the Roman clergy now had no channel of communication to Martin open, they could not inform him of what they had done; he did not find out until another year had passed. During that year, therefore, a situation existed unique in the history of the Papacy: two men simultaneously acting as Pope, but neither an Antipope. Eugenius and his electors probably thought that Martin might have resigned, or become wholly incapacitated, or might even be dead. In the absence of accurate information about him, they acted in good faith for what they saw as the best interests of the Church in a very dangerous situation. But in fact Martin was alive, had not resigned, and was not incapacitated; therefore he was still in fact the Pope (since a Pope cannot be deposed or supplanted without his consent) while Eugenius was in fact simply the ecclesiastical administrator of Rome.” (Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, p. 244.)
We see that the case of Cardinal Siri and Martin I are not analogous. Eugene I was elected by the clergy of Rome because it was believed that Martin I was dead or incapacitated, and they wanted to ensure an orthodox successor. And, in fact, Pope St. Eugene I was eventually the true successor to Pope St. Martin I, and the 77th successor to St. Peter; but when it was discovered that Martin was alive after they had already elected Eugene, it was clear that Martin I was still the Pope, not Eugene. While imprisoned and prior to his death, Pope Martin recognized that Eugene was a true Pope. Thus, this case was merely a case where we have the imprisoned Pope Martin I designating or recognizing his successor (Eugene) in advance of his impending death – a man who had already been chosen by the clergy of Rome.
“For his stubbornness, Martin had been flogged, cruelly humiliated, and finally imprisoned, dying from starvation and abuse in 653. Before his death, however, Martin wrote a letter stating that he recognized Eugene as a rightful pope; he had perhaps hoped that the Romans might wait until he was dead before naming a successor, but the Byzantines put considerable pressure on them to elect someone and Martin accepted this as unavoidable.” (Matthew Brunson, The Pope Encyclopedia, p. 130.)
Again, we see that it is a case where Pope Martin is recognizing his true successor, not cowardly recognizing a heretical Antipope. (If you want to say that Siri’s case is analogous to this, then you must admit that the Vatican II Antipopes were true Popes, which you don’t.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Eugene I,” Vol. 5, p. 598: “With regard to the circumstances of his election, it can only be said that if he was forcibly placed on the Chair of Peter by the power of the emperor, in the hope that he would follow the imperial will, these calculations miscarried; and that, if he was elected against the will of the reigning pope in the first instance, Pope Martin subsequently acquiesced in his election.”
In the case of Cardinal Siri, however, years after his election he recognized the heretical Antipopes and celebrated the New Mass. He even gave the homily for the requiem Novus Ordo “Mass” of Antipope John Paul I, as reported in L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1978, p. 3. This proves that he did not remain the true Pope. In our opinion, what happened with Cardinal Siri was that he remained confused and perplexed immediately after the suborned elections of 1958 and 1963, but eventually gave up fighting and gave in to the apostasy and thus lost his office– as evidenced by the fact that he publicly acquiesced to the Antipopes and the new religion.
The evidence is definitely – and without a doubt – that Cardinal Siri was in fact elected Pope in 1958 and 1963, and that the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI were invalid; but Siri did not remain Pope in the decades following these fateful conclaves for the reasons described above.
Frankly, those people out there who have seen all of the heresies of John Paul II, Paul VI, etc., but refuse to believe that they are not Popes due to public heresy until they see the Cardinal Siri election information, lack Faith. They must see before they will believe, if you will. They must see the Siri election information itself before they believe in the evidence from the Faith (i.e., the undeniable apostasy of John Paul II and Paul VI) and the Catholic teaching (the dogma that a heretic cannot be Pope, since he is not a member). Likewise, those who obstinately insist that Cardinal Siri remained Pope all the way until his death (because they must have a man to follow) also lack Faith, if they have it at all. They must follow the man even though he gave into the apostasy – rather than being content to follow the Office of the Papacy.
Question
30– How can one attend the Mass of a heretic?
Another person says you cannot.
What about attending the traditional Masses of heretics? This person says that you can never attend the Mass of a heretic?
MHFM: Cardinal de Lugo, who was a prominent theologian of the 17th century, who was often quoted by St. Alphonsus, addresses this very issue:
“The second chief doubt is whether we may communicate with an undeclared heretic only in civil and human affairs or even in sacred and spiritual things. It is certain that we cannot communicate with heretics in the rites proper to a heretical sect, because this would be contrary to the precept of confessing the faith and would contain an implicit profession of error. But the question relates to sacred matters containing no error, e.g. whether it is lawful to hear Mass with a heretic, or to celebrate in his presence, or to be present while he celebrates in the Catholic rite, etc.
“But the opposite view [i.e. that attendance at such a Mass is lawful] is general [communis] and true, unless it should be illicit for some other reason on account of scandal or implicit denial of the faith, or because charity obliges one to impede the sin of the heretical minister administering unworthily where necessity does not urge. This is the teaching of Navarro and Sanchez, Suarez, Hurtado and is what I have said in speaking of the sacrament of penance and of matrimony and the other sacraments. It is also certain by virtue of the said litterae extravagantes [i.e. Ad evitanda scandala] in which communication with excommunicati tolerati is conceded to the faithful in the reception and administration of the sacraments.
“So as these heretics are not declared excommunicates or notoriously guilty of striking a cleric, there is no reason why we should be prevented from receiving the sacraments from them because of their excommunication, although on other grounds this may often be illicit unless necessity excuse as I have explained in the said places.” (Cardinal John de Lugo S.J. (1583-1660), Tractatus de Virtute Fidei Divinae: Disputatio XXII, Sectio . According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Alphonsus regarded Cardinal de Lugo as second only to St. Thomas as a theologian.)
Notice that Cardinal de Lugo distinguishes between attending a heretical rite (which is never permitted) and attending a Catholic Mass or rite celebrated by an undeclared heretic (e.g. a priest of the SSPX who celebrates the Catholic rite and claims to be Catholic but is actually a heretic); de Lugo is thus addressing the very issue which is confronting people today and which was posed in the question. And what does he say? He teaches that attendance at such a Mass is lawful and that this is the “general and true” position of Catholic theologians. Please note that Cardinal de Lugo also points out that if circumstances are such that scandal or a denial of the Faith would necessarily arise (e.g., if the priest made an announcement that everyone who attends must agree with him, such as the priests of the SSPV), then you necessarily couldn’t go; or if the priest is notorious about his heresy, then you definitely shouldn’t go. But that is not the case at all Masses celebrated by undeclared heretical priests in the Catholic rite; otherwise de Lugo would have stated that the teaching of all theologians is that all such Masses must always be avoided. Thus, the position that we have been advocating in this regard is the common teaching of Catholic theologians on this issue. A Catholic can never support such a priest and thereby assist him in the propagation of heresy, but he could attend his Mass in order to receive the Sacrament if the priest professes to be Catholic and is not notorious about his heresy.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com