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.
Some Q &A
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?
1– What about the Catechism of Pius X and Shawn M.?
2- How can a heretic provide a valid sacrament and is it a mortal sin to support the SSPX?
3- How can baptism of desire and blood be traditions of man if the Baltimore Catechism teaches them?
4- Is the CMRI an okay place to attend Mass?
5- Wasn’t “for all” used in an Aramaic Mass?
6- Is Mel Gibson a Sedevacantist and did The Passion contradict scripture?
7- What do you think of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)?
8- What are the loopholes in Bayside?
10- I take issue with you calling Fr. Wathen “Mr.” Wathen
11- Pre-Vatican II teaching on NFP, how is it refuted?
12- What about Garabandal, Holy Days, etc.?
14- Comparison with JPII and Alcimus of the Machabees
15- Was the shooting of JPII staged?; question about Sister Lucia?
16- What is the Modernist definition of baptism of desire?
18- What about Fr. Ronald Ringrose?
19- Dolan and Sanborn are not valid Bishops!
20- Sister Lucia and Geocentrism
22- Reconciling the salvation issue with the general and particular, objective and subjective?
23- Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world? Is pride enough to send one to Hell?
24- The New Mass and the Luminous Mysteries?
25- Bob Sungenis on baptism of desire and again misquoting the Council of Trent
26- What about these attacks on Our Lord?
27- When did the New Rite of Ordination come in?
28- Did Padre Pio say that one day John Paul II would be Pope?
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.
Question 1– What about the
Catechism of Pius X and Shawn M.?
Greetings,
I am a recent convert from Protestantism who has since rejected the Novus Ordo
and the "Newchurch" sect. I have been studying sedevacantism
for a few months, and am leaning towards it. I hold to the doctrine of no
salvation outside the Catholic Church, and have been debating with some
associates of totally heretical defenders of Vatican II, namely Shawn M. and
Dave A.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be
saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in
good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire
of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will
as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but
is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of
salvation.
How should this be understood? Also-I have enjoyed your articles very much: you
should write refutations of Shawn M. and Dave A.: not that they are
particularly good writers, but they are apparently very influential in
convincing "conservatives." If
I want to order the DVD's and "No Salvation..." book, do I just send
$15 to the monastery?
Sincerely, Jay D.
MHFM: I’m not
very familiar with the specifics of the writings of the two men you mentioned,
but I am familiar with their general positions.
They give an all-out defense of the Vatican II apostasy, including
defending the
People should really not read writings by people like Shawn
M. unless it is to expose him. Reading
his garbage is truly like listening to Lucifer speak. I know one person who was a sedevacantist who
continually read the “defenses” of ecumenism, etc. by Shawn M. and others. After listening to Shawn M.’s evil garbage
for long enough, the devil moved in and the Sedevacantist began to imbibe the
garbage and his whole Faith was destroyed.
Now, this person actually has no problem with
One other lady who was a traditionalist and home-schooled her children began to read Shawn M.’s writings. She is now back in the Novus Ordo, and her children go to public school. Lucifer can thank his dupe, Shawn M., for that one. But, if we get time, it may be something we will address more in detail in the future.
Regarding the Catechism of Pius X, below I will copy the section from our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation which addresses this issue. In short, what is taught in the Catechism of Pius X is blatantly heretical. Though there is no proof that it came from the pen of Pius X, it doesn’t make a difference. The Catechism taught that there is salvation “outside” the Catholic Church. This is a word-for-word denial of the dogma; and it is proof that the apostasy from this dogma began before Vatican II, through heretical texts with imprimaturs. These heretical texts denying the salvation dogma before Vatican II were key to the Great Apostasy. Anyone who obstinately promotes the heretical teaching of this Catechism on this issue shows that he rejects the dogma and believes in salvation “outside” the Church.
THE CATECHISM
ATTRIBUTED TO ST. PIUS X
The Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,”
Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely
necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the absolute necessity of water baptism. They don’t follow, however, the teaching of this fallible Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”
This again is a total contradiction to what is stated in Question 16. It should be noted that this Catechism, while attributed to Pope St. Pius X, did not come from his pen and was not solemnly promulgated by him. There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the Catechism, so it is just a fallible Catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name. But, even if St. Pius X had himself authored the above words (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the points I’ve made. This is because a Pope is only infallible when speaking Magisterially. This Catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the Pope. Further, this Catechism is proven not to be infallible by the fact that it teaches the abominable heresy that there is salvation “outside” the Church (as I will show)!
But I will first quote where the Catechism affirms the dogma.
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”
Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two questions later!
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”
Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation! It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly denies the truth it taught to the people in question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved “outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside” somehow. So even those crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!
Further, notice that the Catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As proven already, the Catholic Church is a Mystical Body. Those who are not part of the Body are no part at all.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”
This discussion on the Catechisms should demonstrate to the reader how the rampant denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of Water Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible texts with imprimaturs and why it has been imbibed today by almost all who profess to be Catholic. It has been perpetuated by fallible documents and texts which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma, and which teach heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the immutable truths of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water baptism for salvation. And this is why Catholics are bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma, not fallible Catechisms or theologians.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, 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.”
Question 2
– How can a heretic provide valid sacraments and is it a mortal sin to support
the SSPX?
Dear MHFM:
I understand that it is a mortal sin to support heretics. I also understand
that the SSPX provide valid sacraments, and that some consider the SSPX to be
heretics. I have a few questions related to this:
1. How can a heretic provide valid sacraments? 2. If you need the sacraments
for salvation, and the SSPX will give you those sacraments, is it a mortal sin
to rent a room for the SSPX to say mass? Or is it a mortal sin to give them gas
money to come and say mass? Or pay for their plane ticket? What if I pay $50 to
rent the room for the SSPX, but my brother just gives the SSPX a cheque for
$50; does he commit a mortal sin and not I?
If no one gives the SSPX a penny, they will have no means to deliver the
sacraments to the faithful. Is there a distinction between a) giving money for
the sake of getting the sacraments and b) supporting a heretic?
Thank you;
John G.
>>> How can a heretic provide valid sacraments?>>>
MHFM: It is a dogma that once a priest always a priest. When a man is ordained he receives the character of the priesthood. This endows him with the power to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and that power is not taken away if he becomes a heretic or a schismatic.
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.”
The above assertion has always been the teaching of the Church. It is why the Eastern Schismatics (the Eastern "Orthodox") have valid sacraments, valid priests, valid bishops, and valid Masses, even though they have been separated from the Church for about 1000 years. Heretical priests sin when they say Mass and it doesn't profit them unto salvation, but they do confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist validly if they observe valid matter and form (the traditional rite of the Church).
You say, "some consider the SSPX to be heretics" as if you are not convinced? Do you know why they are heretics? If not, then you need to get a copy of our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation and read the section on the SSPX. The SSPX is heretical because it holds that souls can be saved in false religions without the Catholic Faith. It is mortal sin to obstinately (i.e., after being aware of this information) donate anything to them. They also are in union with John Paul II. They are also schismatic in their positions. Read the short article “The Heresies of the SSPX” on our website.
You ask whether one can give them enough money just to
pay for a room or gas? No, one should not give them any money whatsoever
for any reason, although giving them money solely for gas or a room is somewhat
different from giving them free-willed donations. But neither should be
done, because one cannot facilitate priests in heresy to say
>>>If no one gives the SSPX a penny, they will have no means to deliver the sacraments to the faithful>>>
We've been in contact with many people who go to the SSPX and are followers of their Society. We've seen again and again how, despite appearances, many of those who agree with them are not sincere Catholics and are not on the road to salvation. They don’t believe that what they do is really necessary, because they believe in salvation outside the Church. They don’t really believe in Jesus Christ, because they believe that He has allowed his “Pope” to officially err in “Canonizing” Saints. They can appear pious and so forth when they attend Mass, but underneath the façade there is neither true Faith nor an interior dedication to God in those who obstinately embrace their positions.
The bottom-line is that one cannot donate money to any
organization that propagates heresies and leads souls to hell, as the SSPX
does. It is true that they do some good things which can benefit people,
but so do the Greek Orthodox. If one can donate to the SSPX, then one can
donate to the Greek Orthodox or any schismatic group or the Indult priests
which have valid sacraments. Sacraments alone aren't enough for
salvation. One must have the faith pure and inviolate to be saved.
The faith comes before the
Question 3
– How can baptism of desire and blood be traditions of man if the
Dear Brother Dimond,
You say that baptism of blood and desire are erroneous traditions of man. Then why does the Baltimore Catechism teach that there is baptism of blood and desire?
MHFM: The answer to your question is that the Baltimore Catechism is not infallible and had imbibed modernist heresy. That is why it not only teaches baptism of desire and blood, but that people can be saved in false religions. Do you accept that tradition of man?
Question 4
– Is the CMRI an okay place to attend Mass?
Brothers,
I had one last question I forgot to ask in my last email. Is CMRI an okay place to attend mass? And if not could you please let me know what is wrong with their organization. Again thank you for your time.
Robert
MHFM: We believe that you could attend the Mass of certain priests of the CMRI (who are not notorious about their heresy); but you cannot give them any money because they deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, as explained in the section about them our website and in our book. They even believe with Bishop Robert Mckenna that Jews who reject Christ can receive baptism of desire. This is why Fr. Puskorius (editor of their magazine) didn’t respond to our public letter asking him about that issue. Also, we do not believe that anyone should attend the Mass of Bishop Pivarunas, since Pivarunas is a notorious heretic who has repeatedly made his heresy known in a very public fashion.
Question 5
– Wasn’t “for all” used in an Aramaic Mass?
Dear Brothers,
Regarding the for all, for many, debate. I have heard many people defend the "for all" by saying that a certain mass, which has always been said in another language, uses the words "for all". (It may be the Aramaic Mass). I'm sure you are familiar with the argument. What is the answer to this?
MHFM: Some have claimed – most notably Michael Malone, now deceased – that the Traditional Maronite Rite used "all" in its Consecration; but this is not true. After issue #1 of our magazine came out Michael Malone wrote us a letter attempting to refute our article on the New Mass by bringing forward this “proof” that the Maronite Rite used all in the Consecration. But Malone was completely wrong; for it was only a modern mistranslation of the Aramaic word in the Maronite Rite which used "all."
The word all is not found in the Traditional Maronite formula of Consecration. The original Aramaic word is "sagueeia." Sagueeia has been mistranslated in certain English Maronite Liturgies as “all.” It means many, not all. But Michael Malone, who was a heretic who was desperate to defend the New Mass and Vatican II, spread this untruth and deceived a great many.
No traditional liturgy ever approved by the Church has used “all” in the Consecration, nor could it, as our recent article on the New Mass showed. This is because a Sacrament must signify the grace it effects and vice versa. “All” does not signify the grace proper to the Eucharist – the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ – because not all are members of the Mystical Body.
Question 6
– Is Mel Gibson a Sedevacantist and did The Passion contradict Scripture?
Do you know if Mel Gibson is a sedevacantist? Next, have you seen the website… The guy says that "The Passion" contradicts scripture at every turn.....I haven't read everything yet, but what he mentions about the contradictions is very interesting......
Holly Z
MHFM: To your first question, I believe Mel would claim to be a Sedevacantist, although he is not very outspoken about this. In his interview with ABC he gave the line about how the traditional Mass has “never been abrogated.” This is an argument that non-sedevacantists who accept Paul VI as the Pope make.
Regarding the charge that The Passion contradicts scripture, no, I don’t believe The Passion contradicts scripture, except for one glaring change that I noticed that Mel Gibson made to the words of Our Lord. This change was made by Mel to appease the Christ-denying Jews. In the part of the movie where Jesus stands before Pilate (the part that corresponds to John 18:36 ff.), Mel Gibson has Jim Caviezal say:
“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of this people.”
But Jesus actually said, as recorded in John 18:36:
“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of THE JEWS.”
Notice the change that Mel made. He changed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His meaning – simply not to offend the Jews. If he had quoted the actual words of Our Lord the scene would have been more powerful and, most importantly, more accurate. This change was striking for me when I saw the movie.
Question 7
– What do you think of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)?
Brother Peter/Brother Micheal,
I recently convinced someone to stop attending the Novus Ordo Mass, and to
attend the traditional
MHFM: Unfortunately the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) is not acceptable for reception of Sacraments because the "Bishops" that ordain their men were made Bishops in Paul VI's invalid new rite of Episcopal Consecration. So no one should attend their "Masses" because they cannot even be considered valid. They are also compromisers with the Vatican II sect. They accept Vatican II, false ecumenism and John Paul II.
Question 8
– What are the loopholes in Bayside?
Dear Brethren in Christ;
I understand that Bayside is not an authentic apparition. My question is what
are the loopholes of Bayside? I read the contents of the bayside apparitions
and the messages that Veronica Lueken received, none of them seemed to
contravene Scripture and Tradition. In fact, the messages even expose the
diabolical infiltration and masonic subversion of the catholic church to the
novus ordo harlot church. Please enlighten me on this one. Thank you and may
God bless you always.
MHFM: Below is copied a section from our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. This shows that the Bayside message is from the devil. There are many other false statements in Bayside, such as its affirmation that the New Mass is valid; that John Paul II is a good man, etc. The apparently traditional statements in Bayside are put there by the devil to get traditional minded people to read. And once they are reading the devil attempts, in a calculating fashion, to lure these people into an acceptance of the Vatican II sect by mixing certain truths with an acceptance of the false church and the New Mass.
“Our Lady” of Bayside, August 14, 1979: “Do not judge your brothers and sisters who have not been converted. For My Father’s House, My Son has repeated over and over, remember always – that in My Father’s House, there are many rooms in the Mansion, signifying faiths and creeds.”
Our Lady does not contradict infallible dogma and the Chair of St. Peter. To say otherwise is blasphemous heresy. The statement above allegedly from “Our Lady of Bayside,” that in the Father’s House there are many mansions representing many faiths and creeds, is one of the most heretical statements I’ve ever seen. It totally rejects Catholic dogma, which is the teaching of Jesus Christ. This heresy in Bayside totally gives away the Bayside Message as a false apparition of the devil.
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
The Bayside Message contradicts what Catholics must hold by divine faith, that there is only one faith that leads to heaven, the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation. The many mansions in the Father’s house that Our Lord refers to in the Gospel represent different rewards for Catholics who die in the state of grace. Those who continue to believe in Bayside and dismiss these facts are following the deception of the devil; they are rejecting the Catholic Faith and leaving the Catholic Church. They are choosing to follow the “Message” of Bayside over the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those who are aware of this heresy and continue to believe in Bayside are not Catholics and not followers of Our Lady, but rather are followers of the deception the devil has set up for them.
And it is sad to say, but for many followers of false apparitions such as Bayside, the false messages become their “dogma” and replace the real dogma defined by the Popes.
Would you kindly refer me to where the papacy has prior to Vatican Council II declared solemnly that heretics cannot possibly please God in their prayers, praises and worship? I know that this declaration has been solemnly made but I can't put my finger on it. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours in Jesus, Mary
& Joseph,
MHFM: In Sess. 5, the Council of Trent's Decree on Original Sin, it is declared:
"... our Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God' [Heb. 11:6]".
No heretic or non-Catholic can please God so that he becomes justified before him and that God is truly pleased with him. But God does hear the prayers of heretics to turn to the truth if they are sincere in their prayers; for instance, if the heretic sincerely prayed for the true Faith, God would answer and give the heretic the graces to be led to Catholic truth.
Question
10 – I take issue with you calling Fr. Wathen “ Mr.” Wathen
To begin with I agree with you about what you said concerning the Father Wathen heresy. I also agree with you on one baptism and no salvation outside the Church. However, here is where I take issue with you. I resented Father Jenkins calling you the brothers Grimm, and I also do not like Father Wathen belittling your order and you personally. These are cheap shots, from people who have no other defense. I therefore also did not like you calling Father Wathen "mister". You have too much going for you to take this tack. You did not use it on Father Jenkins, nor should you use it on Father Wathen. If Father Wathen was a 'mister'. one could not attend his masses.
You, yourself said to go to their Mass but do not give them any money, and you are correct. The name calling will only make some to say , "forget about both of them, if that is what traditionals are all about". God bless you.
Art
MHFM: Art, there is no obligation to refer to heretics, even those validly ordained, as "Father." The Councils of the Church did not hesitate to refer to Arius, Nestorius, and the other heretics simply as Arius, Nestorius, etc. even though they were priests and Bishops.
II Council of
I refer to Fr. Wathen sometimes as "Mr." Wathen in the article because he attacked our status as religious, so it was necessary to emphasize that he has no status as a Catholic and therefore no actual right to the title of "Father," even though he is a validly ordained priest. But that really shouldn't bother you if you can see that Fr. Wathen is a heretic – which he is. We don’t know if one should go to his Mass at all, considering the manner in which he is broadcasting his heresy. It would be a debatable proposition if one could go there at all, but no one could ever give him any donations.
Question
11 – Pre-Vatican II teaching on NFP, how is it refuted?
I recently read an article…which
quoted Popes and other clergy speaking about NFP prior to PIUS XII. I would
like to know how you refute these quotations, and whether they are just to be
ignored anyway since they are not ex-cathedra pronouncements. -Mark
MHFM: Mark, we are familiar with the quotations. They are not infallible statements; and they are not even Papal statements. They are a few somewhat ambiguous responses from members of the Holy Office before Vatican II and they reflect the growing Modernism that was capturing large parts of the clergy from the time of the late 1800's to Vatican II – as exemplified by the rampant denial of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation found in many theology texts and manuals from the period. So, to reiterate, they are not infallible or binding, and, if they do in fact endorse birth control by means of NFP (as they seem to), they contradict the Magisterial teaching of Pius XI that the primary purpose of marriage and the marriage act is the procreation of children – and that the other purposes or ends of marriage must always be subordinated to the procreation of children. NFP violates this by subordinating the procreation of children to other ends by deliberately trying to avoid it.
Question
12 – What about Garabandal, Holy Days, etc.?
Dear Brother Dimond:
Please put us on your e-mail list. We love your website, and have been reading and rereading your magazines for years. I have some questions for you:
1. Garabandal- What is your opinion? Apparantly, Padre Pio claimed that these were authentic apparitions of Mary, but I'm not so sure about that.
2. Holy days of obligation-These were changed by Paul VI if my memory is correct. If that is the case, since these changes were illegitimate, what are the real Holy Days of Obligation?? And why are they different for different countries? (I thought that they would be the same in a universal Church).
3, Is it allright to make donations to nonCatholic organizations specializing in corporal works of mercy (ie Food for the Poor, Covenant House)?
I would very much like to have answers to these questions.
Brenda
MHFM: Thanks for the support. To answer your questions:
1. A certain person claims that Padre Pio endorsed the Garabandal apparitions. But the accounts of this aren't clear and, frankly, we don't believe the man's story. Even if it were true that Padre Pio endorsed Garabandal, the fact that Padre Pio thought they were true wouldn't prove it to be so, of course.
We believe that Garabandal is definitely a false apparition. We believe this for a number of reasons.
First, according to a friend of ours who has studied it (we have not yet been able to), the message states: "the Pope will reconvene the Council and it will be a great event in the Church.” This means that Garabandal apparently refers to Vatican II as something that will be a "great event" in the Church and Paul VI as a "Pope" - both of which are totally false and, if stated in the message, prove without any doubt that Garabandal was a false apparition of the devil.
Second, all of the "seers" at Garabandal are in
the Novus Ordo sect (a bad fruit) and none of them pursued religious
vocations. (Most of those who have visions such as this, like the real
Sister Lucy of
We believe that the purpose of the false apparitions of Garabandal was to focus people on the physical chastisement – a great warning, miracle, and ball of redemption – and direct people away from Satan's real attack, which concerns our Faith, not physical chastisements. So, while people are waiting for what they think will be the "real" chastisement (what they expect to be a physical one) and remain in the false sect, the true chastisement (a spiritual one, the Vatican II sect) is already upon them and has (already) almost reached its consummation.
2. The Traditional Holy Days of Obligation are : Circumcision (Jan. 1); Ascension Thursday; Assumption BVM (August 15); All Saints' Day (November 1); Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8); Christmas (Dec. 25).
3. One should not make a donation to a non-Catholic organization that specializes in corporal works of mercy. One could donate clothes and possessions that one doesn't need, but not donations. This is because, among other things, you don't know what the non-Catholic organization will do with the donation.
Question
13 – Eugene IV’s definition was before the discovery of the
While at
MHFM: Thanks for your question. A failure to understand – or rather to believe – that dogmatic statements are unchangeable truths revealed by Christ seems to be a consistently problem today. It must be understood that the deposit of Faith ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned
This means that when a Pope defines a dogma from the Chair
of Peter he does not make the dogma true, but rather he proclaims what is
already true, what has already been revealed by Christ and delivered to the
Apostles. So, when Pope Eugene IV
defined that all who die as pagans, Jews, etc. are lost (in the 15th century)
this was true from the death of the last apostle and can never change because
it was delivered by Christ. No new
information could change the truth of this statement. Thus, the discovery of the New World by
The people who have a problem with this simply don’t believe in Papal Infallibility; they don't believe that God watches over these Papal definitions. This would include the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV, etc.
>>>>What are the "Infallible" statements which refute NFP>>>
MHFM: Catholic dogma teaches us that the primary purpose of marriage (and the conjugal act) is the procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”(3)
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”(4)
Besides this primary purpose, there are also secondary purposes for marriage, such as mutual aid, the quieting of concupiscence and the cultivating of mutual love. But these secondary purposes must always remain subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage (the procreation and education of children). This is the key point to remember in the discussion on NFP.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”(5)
Therefore, even though NFP does not directly interfere with the marriage act itself, as its defenders love to stress, it makes no difference. NFP is condemned because it subordinates the primary end (or purpose) of marriage and the marriage act (the procreation and education of children) to the secondary ends.
NFP subordinates the primary end of marriage to other things, by deliberately attempting to avoid children (i.e., to avoid the primary end) while having marital relations. NFP therefore inverts the order established by God Himself. It does the very thing that Pope Pius XI solemnly teaches may not lawfully be done. And this point crushes all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP; because all of the arguments made by those who defend NFP focus on the marriage act itself, while they blindly ignore the fact that it makes no difference if a couple does not interfere with the act itself if they subordinate and thwart the primary PURPOSE of marriage.
So, to summarize: the consistent teaching of the Magisterium, as expressed by Pius XI in Casti Connubii, that the primary end of marriage is the procreation of children and that all other ends must be subordinated to this, refutes NFP.
Question
14 – Comparison with JPII and Alcimus of the Machabees
Dear Brothers:
I'm enjoying your recent anaylsis comparing our present situation with the time of the Maccabees; and your comparison of JPII with the wicked Alcimus.
It's interesting to also note that, according to the Book of Maccabees, Alcimus is stricken with "palsy"---which is exactly what JP II has: "uncontrollable tremors" and "difficulty speaking" See Ist Mac., c. 9, 54. [55] Continued blessings upon your work of exposing the forces of Antichrist.
Yours sincerely, Christopher A.
MHFM: That is a very interesting point.
Question 15
– Was the shooting of JP2 staged?; question about Sister Lucia?
Dear Brothers:
First, congratulations on an excellent website, and May God bless your crusade against heresy! I have two questions.
1) Since, as you point out, the assassination attempt on Wojtyla has elevated his status in the eyes of the world, and enabled him to pose as "Mary's Pope" and preach heresy more effectively, is there any evidence that the assassination attempt was "staged.", and that there was no real threat to the life of Wojtyla?
2) I agree with you
that the real Sister Lucy is dead (or imprisoned). She
would never have supported the the
MHFM: No, there is no evidence that it was staged. We believe that it was the fulfillment of Apocalypse 13:4, where one head of the beast – each head is an Emperor over the seven-hilled city (Apoc. 17:9) – is wounded. It is interesting that the man who shot JP2, Ali Agca, publicly claimed to be Jesus Christ in Court after the event. This is interesting because if the entire assassination attempt was orchestrated by Satan on May 13, 1981 to build up JP2 (which it was), it makes sense that the man whom Satan used to pull it off, Ali Agca, was possessed with John Paul II’s Antichrist doctrine that every man is Jesus Christ.
Regarding your question about Sister Lucia, it’s not clear when they moved the phony one in, but it was probably some time around 1960. But there is no statement from the real one ever questioning the validity of John XXIII.
Question
16 – What is the Modernist definition of baptism of desire?
Brother, what exactly is the modernist definition of baptism of desire? Do the modernists believe that one can be saved merely by having a desire to be baptized but no intention of actually being baptized with water? If so, that's absurd.
Or, do they define baptism of
desire as one who not only desires to be baptized with water but intends to,
but dies before he gets the chance to do so. For example, let's say that
a catechumen who is studying the Catholic faith in order to be baptized, when
on his way to church to be baptized with water is killed by a car. Can he
be saved? Or is this what the modernists teach?
MHFM: The modernists believe that baptism of desire saves people who belong to false religions and have never heard of Christ and don't desire baptism. It is a sick joke that they actually call this abominable view "baptism of desire," since those Doctors of the Church who did believe in baptism of desire (i.e., for catechumens) would condemn their perverse heresy. So, in short, baptism of desire today = salvation for non-Catholics without the Catholic Faith. It is an abominable heresy.
The whole history of the error of baptism of desire (and there is no such thing, even for catechumens) is discussed in depth in our book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, especially section 14.
Question
17 – What about these Sisters?
Dear Rev. Brothers
At last the kettle calls the pot
black?!. By the way, last month Sister Mary Cabrini (
They also urged us to stay away from ALL Traditionalist priests and priestly societies as all of these are operating illicitly - " criminal and sacrilegious " (Pius XII). The only priest acceptable would be one ordained during the reign of Pius XII who from the very outset rejected Vatican II and the New Mass.
MHFM: Yes, I've spoken with one of those "Sisters." Unfortunately, they are heretics who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. What they say on baptism of desire is completely false and is refuted in our book. They also don't know what they are talking about regarding Jurisdiction.
They are hypocritical, for while they spew their false views regarding Jurisdiction, they are themselves independent and irregular according to normal status. But I guess the "rules" don't apply when it comes to them, of course.
Question
18 – What about Fr. Ronald Ringrose?
Good afternoon, I just went to your
Web site today and noticed a new article warning about heretical priests. I noticed that Fr.
Ringrose was on the list when I read the article.
This was a surprise to me, because I have been to St. Athanasius (in Vienna,
Virginia) since 2002 and not once have heard him even mention anything about
"Feeneyism" in any of his sermons; however, I have seen pamphlets in
near the front door which come from SSPX magazines which actually promote
"baptism of desire". And the bookstore also sells SSPX
material.
I never saw anything notorious in this regard, but I have heard on only two
occasions where he talks about the heresies of Vatican II, yet does not go
forward with the correct conclusion (i.e. the last four claiming to be popes
from John XXIII onward are actually antipopes). As with
"Feeneyism", I did not see this heresy imposed on anyone from the
times I've been there. However, I have stopped going to Mass at that
chapel for some time while I'm still trying to sort this all out. I have
not talked to him about either issue, and planned to do so once I got my
information together to present to him. I want to make sure my information
is 100% correct before doing anything like this…Thanks for the
information. Take care, and have a blessed afternoon.
MHFM: We were informed by a lady who attended that church that Fr. Ringrose gave a series of talks on baptism of desire, basically denouncing Feeneyism and anyone who holds it. The fact that you saw pamphlets on baptism of desire corroborates that he has a major desire to promote it, and that he is clearly against those who don't accept it. We don't believe anyone should attend his church since he has publicly denounced “Feeneyism” from the pulpit, but one could certainly call him up and ask him his position on the matter.
Question
19 – Dolan and Sanborn are not valid Bishops!
I was reading you article entitled: A Warning about certain Heretical Traditional Priests and Chapels
You include a Bishop (?) Dolan and a Bishop (?) Sanborn. These guys
are not valid Bishops since they were never valid Priests.
George
MHFM: You are referring to the accusation that Bishop Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre and consecrated him with two other Bishops, was a Freemason and therefore did not validly confer Orders upon Lefebvre – which subsequently caused all the priests ordained by Lefebvre to be invalid.
While some may be sincerely confused about this issue, it is not a tenable position. This is because when a minister uses the correct matter and form - that is, the traditional rite of ordination - he is presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. Lienart used the traditional rite of ordination in ordaining and consecrating Lefebvre.
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.”
Suspicion that Lienart was a Freemason is not sufficient to question his intention, since he used the traditional rite in ordaining Lefebvre. During the French Revolution the Bishop Talleyrand was a Freemason. He ordained many priests. There is no evidence that the Church re-ordained any of those men; on the contrary, they were accepted as valid. Further, it was discovered after his death that Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla, was a high-ranking Freemason. Surely Rampolla ordained priests, but there is no evidence that any of the men he ordained were conditionally re-ordained. If one can doubt the validity of the Lefebvre-line orders then one can go back in history and question almost anyone's orders.
Question 20 – Sister Lucia, and Geocentrism
Dear Brothers Dimond,
Enjoyed reading your article on "The Great Apostasy, Not the Great Facade." Would you put me on the mailing list?
My questions:
What is your opinion of Sr. Lucy? Does she attend the New Mass? Does anyone have access to her true opinions? Do you have an article on her? (and)
What is your opinion on Geocentrism? Do you have an article on the controversy? (Is there anyway you can add a Search feature to your site?)
God bless you.
Catherine
MHFM: 1. Our
opinion on this “Sister” Lucia is discussed in Question #1 of the Summer
Questions and Answers section of our website. I would recommend that you
look at that. It is also discussed in the back of issue 5 of our
magazine. In short, this “Sister Lucia” is not the real one. She
has repeatedly stated that she agrees that the Third Secret has been revealed,
and that she is in line with the
The reason she is silenced much of the time is because if
she weren’t she would be quickly detected as a fraud; it is not because she
would tell the Nicholas Gruner line on
2. We don’t have a fully formed opinion on Geocentrism and we haven’t written anything on the subject. We are open to facts in this regard.
Question
21 – Has the hierarchy died?
I was reading through your articles and noticed under the brief one dealing with whether the Catholic remnant needs governing Bishops or not, and it says there are currently no fully Catholic Bishops, if I understood correctly.
Does this mean the hierarchy has died?
MHFM: The hierarchy can be defined in two ways: the jurisdictional hierarchy and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Only those who have ordinary jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction which is attached to an office) constitute the jurisdictional hierarchy. All valid Catholic priests, on the other hand, constitute the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is possible that as long as the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains the hierarchy exists.
However, the non-sedevacantists who raise this objection cannot point to one real Catholic Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. Who are they going to point to? "Bishop" Bruskewitz, who thinks that not converting schismatics is not heretical? "Cardinal" Mahony? "Cardinal" Keeler?
The fact is that if there must be one Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction somewhere (which is something that has not been proven), then he is somewhere. But it does not change the fact that John Paul II and his apostate Bishops are not Catholic and therefore not part of the hierarchy. Against a fact there is no argument; and against this fact there is no argument.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits. 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, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)
Question
22 – Reconciling the salvation issue with the general and particular,
objective/subjective?
Dear Brs. Peter and Michael,
I know that you spend many hours researching doctrinal matters. I have a matter that I would like you to consider researching. It deals with the issue of Baptism of desire. As you know, the subject of baptism of desire, and blood, has become somewhat of a hot topic as of recent years. This is a matter that has divided traditional Catholics.
You take the position that since
the Church teaches INFALLIBLY that a person must be baptized WITH WATER, that
baptims of blood and desire are heresy.
Others, on the other hand, claim that baptism of desire and blood are
teachings of the Church from the earliest years. In my opinion, both sides make a strong case
for their belief. You base yours on the
infallible statements; others claim that
I have found something that I think clears up the matter. At least in my mind, the "contradiction" between the teachings of various saints is cleared up. Since you dedicate so much of your time to study, I am requesting that you look into this matter.
In reading the writings of St.
Alphonsus Ligouri and St. Catherine of
The laws of the Church apply to the "general order", while the "particular" order applies to individual cases (circumstances). …Likewise, the Church speaks in the general order when it defines a dogma, but does not necessarily rule out a "particular" exception. In other places in "the Diologue" God speaks in greater detail of the general order and a particluar order. I think this may be the answer to the issue of baptism of desire and blood. In the general order, everyone must be baptised with water; however, in the particular order, there can be exceptions.
I am requesting that you look into this subject to see what you can find in Church teaching, as this may clear up the apparent "contradiction" between what some Popes and saints have taught. I would be interested in hearing what you find.
Thank you very much for all of your hard work and studies for the Church. I have most of your videos and tapes and do appreciate your fervent efforts.
If you do have time dedicate to this subject, I ask that you keep me informed as I too will be studying the topic. If I find any more information I will pass it along to you.
MHFM: Thanks for the interest. But the proposition (if applied to dogmatic truths) is actually heretical. The idea that a dogma can have a reality that contradicts the truth declared infallibly is directly contrary to truth. It would, therefore, render the truth false.
Pope St. 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
There are no exceptions to a dogma – unlike ecclesiastical or canon law – because a dogma is an unchangeable truth. If the proposition you described were viable, then one would have to admit that a Catholic can believe that certain Jews who reject Christ can be saved, because, in the general order, they must accept Him; but in the particular order some can reject Him in good faith. But that is totally heretical.
Also, along the same lines, one could believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate in the general order; but, in the particular order, He may appear to some as the Dalai Lama or as other men. If the proposition described above is viable, then so is this. But this is obviously heretical.
Question
23 – Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world? Is pride enough to send one to Hell?
1. Who are the faithful Catholics left in the world, since all the CMRI bishops are heretical with all their followers, the SSPX believes that Satan can be the head of the Church, and all the other independent priests believe in baptism of Desire?
2. Please estimate for me how many faithful Catholics are left in the world, since all of these people are heretics?
3. Do you believe that Pride is enough to put a soul into hell!
MHFM: The faithful Catholics left in the world are those who maintain the true Faith. I don't know the number of those. If pride is grave then it will lead to mortal sins which will put a person in hell. And “pride is the beginning of all sin” (Ecclus. 10:15). Pride causes man not to pray as much, not to fear sin, not to listen to what they should or to whom they should, not learn what they need to know. Pride causes people to dismiss truth or people speaking the truth by finding fault with petty things. We’ve dealt with many people who, though they don’t have haughty personalities, admit that they commit mortal sins and yet they are still critical of others’ spiritual lives. Frankly, if they commit any mortal sin then they shouldn’t be criticizing anybody. But they cannot see their decrepit state because they are filled with pride: “…knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Apoc. 3:17) They don’t fear to offend God by their mortal sins because they are filled with pride.
Question
24 – The New Mass and the Luminous Mysteries
Dear Bro.Michael Dimond, O.S.B. and Bro.Peter Dimond, O.S.B.,
I am from Sabah
I never know about the Novus Ordo until only recently which is about 2 weeks to be exact. I don't know if our Mass is valid or not. Tell me what to do. And how about the new decade of rosary, the Luminous Mystery. Is it legal or is it considered under Novus Ordo?
Thank you for your time.
Mary
MHFM: We're very glad to hear that you found the website. The New Mass is not valid, because it has a changed form of Consecration. A Catholic must not attend it under any circumstances. The article near the top of the website explains why the New Mass cannot be valid.
Also, no Catholic should pray the Luminous Mysteries because they were added by Antipope John Paul II, who is not a valid Pope. If you have more questions, let us know.
Question
25 – Bob Sungenis on baptism of desire and misquoting the Council of Trent
Bob Sungenis consistently misquotes the Council of Trent,
Sess. 6, Chap. 4. [For a full discussion
of this passage see the section on Sess. 6, Chap 4 in section 16 of: The Book:
Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.]
Sungenis uses the same misquote of this passage again and again that was refuted in our book. People have written him about it, but he
still misquotes
To Mr. Sungenis
I noticed in the December 2004 question about "Baptism
of Desire" (number 38), that you
used a mistranslation
of that referenced portion of the Council of
The true translation is "without", not "except
through". Hence, the true quote from the Council of
aware of this?
Bridget
R. Sungenis: Bridget, whether the "true" translation is
"without" or "except through" really makes little
difference, since the words are interchangeable in English. To suggest that
MHFM COMMENT: Mr. Sungenis’ statement here is nonsense. One example is sufficient to explode it.
A Sacrament cannot take place without matter or form.
This is a true statement which means that both matter and form are necessary for a sacrament. If we substitute “except through” for “without” we see that the meaning is changed and the statement is rendered false.
A Sacrament cannot take place except through matter or form.
This is a false statement which indicates that either matter or form is sufficient for a sacrament. It means something different from the statement above. Thus, “except through” does not always mean the same thing as “without.”
I continue with Mr. Sungenis’ response:
R. Sungenis: Let's look at both possibilities:
First using "except through"
"...and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be erected [sic] except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written..."
Now with "without":
"...and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be erected [sic] without the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written..."
The latter usage would clearly indicate that one cannot be baptized without water or the desire for water, and thus the condition of using water is fulfilled both in the usage of "without" and "except through."
Lastly, I would suggest that whoever is trying to teach you that there is no such thing as a baptism of desire cease and desist. This is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, and it is infallible. Any attempt to alter it will simply bring terrible consequences.
MHFM: Sungenis’ comment here doesn’t make sense. He has confused the entire subject of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, which is what cannot be missing in Justification, and confused it with what is necessary for baptism. Baptism of desire has never been taught by the Catholic Church.
Those who deny baptism of desire will not suffer terrible consequences. No, Mr. Sungenis, your denial of the defined dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation has brought down on your head terrible consequences.
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.”
Your consistent and deliberate misquoting of the Council of Trent has brought down on your head mortal sin.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”
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).”
God made sure that the words “as it is written” were
included in that very sentence to ensure that the Council was not teaching
baptism of desire by its wording in that passage. The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born
again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
Question
26 – What about these attacks on Our Lord?
well i was reading a book by a scoffer, and he says that one reason that jesus wasn't alive was that there was no record of him in the area. he claims that the levites and secret society's took the story of horus and changed the names and dates to jesus. he claiims that writers like philo were there and never wrote of jesus. there is a few others too, but that one is good for now. and how could jesus be born of original sin if his mother wasn't. if she wasn't born with immaculate conception, she must have some original sin in her. i would like to know how to counter this mans arguement. thank you. jason
MHFM: Jesus didn't have any sin. And you shouldn't read books that attack Our Lord. That is a very bad occasion of sin. These books are written by Satan, and those who entertain such demonic attacks on the true God allow Satan into their souls to destroy their faith. That is why those who read nonsense like The Davinci Code or some other Satanic garbage, unless it is with the very unusual task of an expert reading it solely to expose it, offend Our Lord gravely and show they don't really believe in Him.
Question
27 – When was the New Rite of Ordination introduced?
Hello Brother Dimond. Would you happen to know when the new rite of Holy Orders was introduced by Paul Vl? I found out that the priest who baptized me was ordained in May, 1967 and am curious to know which rite was used for his ordination. Thanks.
MHFM: It was introduced June 18, 1968.
Question
28 – Did Padre Pio say that one day John Paul II would be Pope?
I’ve heard people say that Padre Pio told John Paul II that one day he would be Pope.
MHFM: We had heard the same thing, but the answer to your question is No. Padre Pio never told John Paul II that he would be Pope. In an article in Inside the Vatican, John Paul II was asked about this and admitted that Padre Pio never told him this. But the myth was spread all around nevertheless. But Padre Pio did throw John Paul II out of the Confessional during his visit to San Giovanni Rotondo in 1947.
Antonio Pandiscia is the official biographer of Padre Pio and he was the only man allowed to interview him more than once. He said: “The current Pope [sic] went to San Giovanni Rotondo for the first time in 1947 shortly after his ordination. A witness, who has since passed away, told me that Padre Pio was brusque with the young Polish priest on that occasion. I think he could not accept the fact that the young Wojtyla (John Paul II) had worked in the theatre before becoming a priest.” (Inside the Vatican, August/September, 1996, p. 12.)
Question 29 – What do
you think about the people who still say that John Paul II is a Catholic and
not a heretic after seeing all the evidence?
What is your opinion of those who say that John Paul II is not a heretic, even after you show them his heresies?
MHFM: I believe that those who have seen all the evidence against John Paul II – for instance, the Assisi abominations; his teaching that we shouldn’t convert Schismatics; his Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification; his desire to promote Islam and Islamic culture; his acceptance of all religions as more or less good; his teaching that all men are saved; his teaching that the Holy Ghost is responsible for non-Christian religions; his teaching that there are Saints and Martyrs in non-Catholic religions; his teaching that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion; etc., all of which are covered in our video Why Antipope John Paul II Cannot Be the Pope – and still say that he is a Catholic and not a heretic, are committing a sin about as bad as worshipping Satan.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com