IN THIS ARTICLE:
• BITZER SAYS THAT MHFM TEACHES “HERESIES”
• OPEN LETTER AND DEBATE CHALLENGE TO GAVIN BITZER AFTER BECOMING AWARE OF HIS COMMENTS
• BITZER DENIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON A CATHOLIC’S ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE HERETICS
• BITZER DENIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON THE EFFECTS OF HERESY
• BITZER PROFESSES A FALSE FAITH BY RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS ONE OF THE FAITHFUL
• BITZER’S POSITION REQUIRES HIM TO ACCEPT JOHN PAUL II AS A ‘SAINT’ – THAT IS BLASPHEMY AND APOSTASY
• BITZER IS A SCHISMATIC FOR OBSTINATELY CONDUCTING A LONG-STANDING OPERATION OUTSIDE OF HIS ‘HIERARCHY’
• BITZER’S POSITION DENIES CATHOLIC TEACHING ON PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE PURITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM
Fr. Gavin Bitzer is an independent ‘traditionalist’ priest. He holds a position on the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes that’s almost exactly the same as the Society of St. Pius X. He acknowledges Antipope Francis and the Novus Ordo ‘bishops’ as the ‘Catholic hierarchy,’ but he ignores basically everything they do. He rejects their official teaching, and he conducts an ‘apostolate’ that’s completely independent of (and unapproved by) his authorities. In short, his position is typical of a non-sedevacantist false traditionalist schismatic and heretic. It’s soundly refuted in our material and by the facts covered in this article.
Bitzer was ordained by the SSPX, but he left many years ago and became affiliated with Fr. James Wathen. (Wathen has since passed away). Therefore, what is stated about Bitzer’s position also applies to the position Wathen held. Sadly, Wathen maintained his false position obstinately and even to his death.
Bitzer claims to hold that no one is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., that there is no ‘baptism of desire’). That’s rare among ‘traditionalist’ priests. However, in reality he doesn’t hold the position. He regards as Catholic groups and people (such as priests of the SSPX) who hold that souls can be saved in any religion and in fact attack the true position on Baptism. Moreover, for years Bitzer has given Holy Communion to a man who helps run an organization which is notoriously involved in distributing literature against the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. In short, Bitzer couldn’t care less whether people accept or reject ‘baptism of desire’.
BITZER SAYS THAT MHFM TEACHES “HERESIES”
About ten years ago we called Gavin Bitzer in a charitable attempt to explain the falsity of his position on the antipopes and the Counter Church. In the conversation Bitzer was extremely arrogant and insulting. He was not interested in listening at all. Apparently he thinks that he possesses some special status because a little ‘traditionalist’ flock looks up to him as their ‘shepherd’. It’s very clear that he’s not interested in truth and he has tremendous bad will.
A few weeks ago we were contacted by a woman who attended Fr. Gavin Bitzer’s Masses. For years this woman adhered to the position of Bitzer and Wathen on the Vatican II sect. However, upon examining the information we have published, she was persuaded that the sedevacantist position is correct and that the Vatican II antipopes are not true popes. She e-mailed Bitzer to inform him of her thoughts. She cited some of our material and he responded by stating, among other things: “IF YOU CONTINUE WITH THIS AND THEM–I CANNOT BE YOUR PRIEST. STAY OUT OF THIS AND AWAY FROM THEM IF YOU WANT ME TO BE YOUR PRIEST. FRB.” Clearly, he doesn’t like us very much. He also stated that our material should be avoided because we supposedly teach “heresies” (yes, he actually said that we teach “heresies” in the plural) and that “they don’t know what they are talking about.” Here’s the actual quote:
Gavin Bitzer: “Stay away from them [the Dimonds]. They do not know what they are talking about. I am not a sedevacantist. They are… David should not waste his time reading their heresies.”
We would be interested to know what “heresies” he thinks we teach. Needless to say, his accusation is false and he’s a liar. He also said we are “laymen” and he misspelled our name. Perhaps the misspelling was deliberate to make it seem as if he’s unfamiliar with us, when in fact he’s known about us for many years. (Extremely proud people do things like that.)
Bitzer’s false and arrogant comments are typical of what cowardly priests like him prefer to circulate in private. We doubt that he would ever send those statements to us directly, for then he knows he might have to back them up. But we tell people what we think directly. So, after reading his false statements about us and our positions, on September 14, 2014, we wrote to him directly and challenged him to a debate.
OPEN LETTER TO GAVIN BITZER AFTER BECOMING AWARE OF HIS COMMENTS
To Gavin Bitzer:
It came to our attention that you still regard the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy (e.g., Francis) as true popes. Your position is directly contrary to Catholic teaching in many ways. It’s actually heretical, schismatic and blasphemous, as I will explain.
You not only obstinately reject Catholic teaching on numerous matters, but you consider those who adhere to the true position to be in heresy. For example, you falsely state that our material contains “heresies” and that “they don’t know what they are talking about.” No, Mr. Bitzer, you are wrong and you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. That would be proven quite clearly if we had a debate on the matter. So, I challenge you to a recorded telephone debate on the issue of whether Francis should be considered the pope, according to Catholic teaching. I doubt that you will accept the debate challenge, for you know that you cannot defend your false position. In fact, if we debated you’d be embarrassed and exposed. But let us know if you are interested.
It’s truly pathetic that, after all these years, with all the facts and information available, you still haven’t recognized the truth: that the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy are antipopes. You reject the true position no matter how obvious it has become. It’s an example of your profound bad will. Here’s why your position is heretical.
YOU DENY CATHOLIC TEACHING ON A CATHOLIC’S ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE HERETICS
First, you deny the Church’s teaching that Catholics can and must recognize people who deny Catholic teaching to be heretics, irrespective of any declaration of heresy by a Church authority. That’s the teaching of councils, popes, and doctors of the Church (see the video below). In fact, according to your heretical position, people in the Novus Ordo sect who promote abortion, contraception, deny Scripture, deny Christ’s Divinity, etc. are Catholics, simply because they haven’t been declared heretics. That’s patent nonsense and it’s easily refuted. Your position means that you share faith with people like Nancy Pelosi and Melinda Gates. They are in the Catholic Church, according to you, even though they openly and obstinately promote abortion and contraception. That denies the unity of faith in the Church, one of the Church’s marks. Your comments actually show that you have no idea what you are talking about on the issue, and you repeat old lies year after year. This video below documents the Catholic Church’s teaching from popes and councils: that people who dissent from Catholic teaching can and must be recognized as heretics prior to any declaration in canon law or by a Church authority.
The Remnant and Robert Siscoe Refuted on Sedevacantism (video and article)
YOU DENY CATHOLIC TEACHING ON THE EFFECTS OF HERESY
Second, your position denies the defined dogma that people who in fact dissent from Catholic teaching automatically become heretics and automatically lose any office they might hold in the Church. You follow Wathen’s false position on that matter. You hold that baptized persons who dissent from Catholic teaching always remain Catholics. Wathen was quite explicit and adamant on that point. He held that ‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic’. The problem is that his position is directly contrary to the teaching of the Church on that issue. Nevertheless, Wathen refused to correct himself well after his error was pointed out to him. In fact, Wathen’s heretical position (which you also hold) denies the Bull Cantate Domino, which defined that all heretics are outside the Church.
You also write: “NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DEPOSE THE POPE–EVEN IF THE POPE IS A HERETIC.” Your statement here exposes your complete misrepresentation of Catholic principles and the arguments on this matter. No one is stating that a cardinal, a bishop or anyone else can depose a pope. Rather, a claimant who becomes a heretic is deposed automatically. He loses his office as a consequence of his automatic expulsion from the Body of Christ and thus deposes himself. Apparently after all these years you still haven’t even read the teaching of the doctors of the Church on this matter.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: “Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…”
St. Antoninus (1459): “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
Your repetition of completely false information on this matter reveals either mortally sinful negligence on your part or a total repudiation of Catholic principles. You have no problem repeating false arguments and lies year after year. That’s because the truth doesn’t concern you. Rather, maintaining your false position is what matters to you. The aforementioned video documents Catholic teaching on this point as well.
Moreover, the Church teaches that a heretic, since he is outside the Church, is ineligible for papal election. A heretic cannot be elected to lead the Church when he is not even in the Church. The Vatican II antipopes thus never even became popes. (See Pope Paul IV’s explicit teaching on this matter in Cum ex apostolatus officio.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void.”
Furthermore, in your aforementioned statement, you argue that a heretic continues to be pope. That’s heresy. The Magisterium condemns your position.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “… it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside the Church can command in the Church.”
Read this carefully. It’s absurd to hold that someone who is outside can command in the Church, and it’s a dogma that all heretics are outside the Church (Eugene IV). But you hold that heretics – people who are, by definition, outside the Church – can command in the Church. You thus deny the teaching of the Magisterium and promote that which is “absurd”, according to Pope Leo XIII.
YOU PROFESS A FALSE FAITH BY RECOGNIZING FRANCIS AS ONE OF THE FAITHFUL
Third, your position proves that YOU PROFESS A FALSE FAITH. It’s a dogma that Catholics can only consider in the Church those who are baptized and PROFESS THE TRUE FAITH (Mystici Corporis). But Francis professes that Judaism can be practiced (heresy opposed to defined dogma), that non-Christians can be saved (heresy opposed to defined dogma), and that it’s not necessary to join the Catholic Church (heresy opposed to defined dogma), to name just a few. He therefore does not profess the true faith in the external forum. He professes a false faith. Based on his profession of a false faith in the external forum, Catholics are forbidden to consider him in the Church. In fact, to identify him as a Catholic (as your position does) is to declare that Francis professes the true faith. That necessarily means that, according to you, professing that Judaism can be practiced, that non-Christians can be saved, and that non-Catholics don’t need conversion, is the TRUE FAITH. That’s your position. But such a position is heretical, blasphemous, and mortally sinful. That’s explained in this video.
YOUR POSITION REQUIRES YOU TO CONSIDER JOHN PAUL II A ‘SAINT’ – THAT IS BLASPHEMY AND APOSTASY
Fourth, your position also requires you to accept John Paul II, a man who practiced false ecumenism and facilitated the worship of idols, as a ‘saint.’ That is an extreme blasphemy. You cannot argue that Francis’ ‘canonization’ was lacking in some way, for he used the solemn formula that was used before Vatican II. If you can reject Francis’ ‘canonizations’, then any canonized saint in history can be rejected. Thus, your adherence to Antipope Francis means that either 1) you accept John Paul II as a saint, and thus completely blaspheme God and deny the Catholic faith; or 2) you fall into schism and mortal sin for rejecting the solemn acts of the man you consider pope – and reject the certainty of all canonizations in Catholic history.
YOU ARE A SCHISMATIC FOR OBSTINATELY CONDUCTING A LONG-STANDING OPERATION OUTSIDE OF YOUR ‘HIERARCHY’
Fifth, your position is utterly schismatic. If you consider Francis to be the pope, then you are bound to operate under his ‘hierarchy’. You have no justification for doing what you do, if Francis is the pope and his bishops are the ‘Catholic bishops’.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, A.D. 110: “He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience.”
St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, A.D. 386: “Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop.”
You are not permitted to operate for decades outside the authority of the hierarchy you consider Catholic. That is schismatic. So, when you stubbornly declare that Francis is the pope, you condemn your own operation. Your obstinately independent position proves that you are a schismatic, in addition to a heretic.
YOUR POSITION DENIES PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND CATHOLIC TEACHING ON THE PURITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM
Your position also denies papal infallibility. As our material proves, if the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy were true popes (and they weren’t), they used their magisterial authority at Vatican II (and in other places) to teach false doctrines. That’s impossible.
You thus deny the infallibility of the Magisterium and the infallibility of official acts of the Papal Office. Those who obstinately hold your position, in the face of the facts, necessarily hold that the Catholic Magisterium has defected. See this video:
Was Vatican II Infallible? (video)
In fact, if Francis is the pope, his official declarations in his ‘apostolic exhortation’ Evangelii Gaudium, which was addressed to the entire Church, would be magisterial. Yet, in that heretical document, he teaches, among other things: the heresies of religious liberty, salvation outside the Church, that the Old Covenant is valid, etc. You are in communion with a false, heretical, non-Catholic sect, and an utter apostate named Francis. To say that Francis is a Catholic, as you do, is blasphemy – period.
We must tell you in charity that you are without any doubt a heretic and on the road to damnation. Your positions directly contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church in numerous areas, as we have proven and could further prove. We desire your conversion, but unless you humble yourself and embrace the truth you will definitely go to Hell.
Let us know if you accept the debate challenge.
Bro. Peter Dimond
Most Holy Family Monastery
BITZER DID NOT RESPOND BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE CANNOT DEFEND HIS POSITIONS AND THAT HE’D BE CRUSHED IN A DEBATE
Not surprisingly, Bitzer did not respond to the debate challenge because he knows that his position would be completely exposed. Bitzer is a prime example of an independent priest who should not be approached for the sacraments. He’s a horrible and imposing heretic and schismatic. He couldn’t care less about Catholic teaching. He is completely of bad will and is without doubt on the road to Hell.
The comments of Bitzer provide another example of something we’ve discussed many times. It’s a sad fact that with almost all priests, they aren’t concerned about the faith or the truth but primarily about maintaining a status or a community. Bitzer’s lame and elementary arguments were refuted 15 years ago. Truly, in all that time (and even more) he hasn’t learned anything about the issues involved: that heretics lose office automatically without declaration, etc. That’s because HE DOESN’T CARE. He’s only concerned about keeping the little flock which looks up to him and continuing with his externals. Sadly, that’s a common theme among false traditionalists. We’ve discovered that this is why almost all ‘traditional’ priests enter the seminary. The faith and the truth is not their priority. Externals, status (i.e., being looked up to as a ‘priest’) and community are their priorities. That’s why they don’t take the issues seriously. It’s why they don’t seek to conform their views as closely as possible to the facts of Catholic teaching. It’s why they can adhere to utterly refuted, completely false, totally illogical, heretical and schismatic positions for decades.
Everything that has happened with the Vatican II sect in recent years has proven our position correct. Just consider the bad will involved for someone like Bitzer to claim to reject much of the Vatican II sect, and to have this information available to him – to actually live through the ‘canonization’ of John Paul II, to see what Antipope Francis is doing, etc. – and still not embrace the true position. It’s beyond pathetic. It’s abominable. Only a thoroughly evil and faithless person, for whom fidelity to the truth of Catholic teaching means nothing, could do such a thing. He’s another striking example of how false traditionalist priests don’t care about the truth or the Catholic faith. If they did, they would embrace and defend the true positions.
St. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, A.D. 110: “Do not err, my brethren: the corrupters of families will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God, for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man so foul will depart into unquenchable fire; and so also will anyone who listens to him.”
Fourth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 869-870: “The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith.”